as am i, but we've agreed there are regulations on all. you cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater... it is not protected free speech. similarly, there is room for some regulation of access to guns. granted, i dont think banning assault weapons is the answer, but not every single move to regulate guns is automatically violating the 2nd amendment, just as not every regulation on speech is a violation of constitutional rights.
i find that many of the NRA folks view it just that way though, which is unproductive. instead of involving people with an honest concern for 2nd amendment rights, it has effectively excluded them from the debate becos they're unwilling to come to the table to talk sense and compromise. it's led to a weird ad-hoc patchwork of gun laws that is ridiculous and ineffective and probably does more damage to 2nd amendment rights than an honestly discussed and well thought policy would.
the gun control act of 1968 has done more to increase crime than any other law.
you have to get a license to buy, use, or possess a gun, just like a car. it requires education about safety practices and so on and so forth, also a shooting requirement as well most likely. you have to renew the license every so often and felonies or violent misdemeanors (im thinking especially of domestic abuse) will cost you that license. once you have a license, you can buy any gun you want with no waiting period or background check. you do not have to register or track the gun, but you do have to keep any paperwork related to the sale in your possession (ie. cant throw it out, it's like a car title only not held by the government). licenses would cover and subsequently allow all of the following: simple ownership, hunting, home defense, concealed carry. there would be no denial of a license unless you are a felon or something along those lines (similar to a driver's license... if you want it and pass the course, you get one).
if your gun is lost or stolen you must report it along with documentation of said gun (only to help guide the search if the gun turns up in a crime). losing guns frequently can cost you your license (careless ownership), but having it stolen simply relieves you of responsibility for the gun. there would be stiff penalties for faking a theft though. becos i would also say that if your gun is used in a crime, you are strictly liable for a felony of some sort (not the crime committed, but some new crime)... this deters off-market sales (selling to some crackhead becos you're strapped for cash) and careless ownership. you are immune from liability if you have reported it lost or stolen, however.
any and all taxes from gun sales go directly to police forces and, as best as possible, are earmarked for anti-smuggling law enforcement (i think the ATF handles that? so maybe they'd be the chief benificiary) in an effort to minimize illegal arms smuggling. though i TRULY doubt many guns used in street crimes in the US were obtained via smuggling (ill bet anything they were almost all bought legally in the US at first), since you raise it as a concern i will address it.
sellers of guns have to be licensed similar to buyers/owners, only with stricter standards. background checks perhaps (chiefly for moral turpitude). they have to keep track of what stock they buy though not necessarily who they sell it to. they would be immune from prosecution for legally sold guns. it would just be a tool for law enforcement to try to track the path of guns used in crimes by narrowing the field, so to speak. gun shows pose an interesting problem. im not quite clear on what purpose they serve within the gun culture, so im leaning towards a temporary permit of sorts. if you dont want to be a store owner/seller but want to be more than just a buyer, you can get limited permits for gun shows (or if you, for instance, DO want to sell your gun to a friend) that allows you to do so, but you would have to provide info on all stock and keep records of who buys that stock (but again, it is not tracked by the government... more of an honor system with penalties for intentional fraud). again, i am less sure here becos im not entirely sure how gun shows fit into this.
basically, the intent being to keep government out of the picture while increasing the individual's responsibility for his/her own gun use. less paperwork and ineffective oversight. you are smart about your gun use, and you have nothing to worry about, from the government or anyone else. you are careless and it could cause you serious problems.
you have to get a license to buy, use, or possess a gun, just like a car. it requires education about safety practices and so on and so forth, also a shooting requirement as well most likely. you have to renew the license every so often and felonies or violent misdemeanors (im thinking especially of domestic abuse) will cost you that license. once you have a license, you can buy any gun you want with no waiting period or background check. you do not have to register or track the gun, but you do have to keep any paperwork related to the sale in your possession (ie. cant throw it out, it's like a car title only not held by the government). licenses would cover and subsequently allow all of the following: simple ownership, hunting, home defense, concealed carry. there would be no denial of a license unless you are a felon or something along those lines (similar to a driver's license... if you want it and pass the course, you get one).
if your gun is lost or stolen you must report it along with documentation of said gun (only to help guide the search if the gun turns up in a crime). losing guns frequently can cost you your license (careless ownership), but having it stolen simply relieves you of responsibility for the gun. there would be stiff penalties for faking a theft though. becos i would also say that if your gun is used in a crime, you are strictly liable for a felony of some sort (not the crime committed, but some new crime)... this deters off-market sales (selling to some crackhead becos you're strapped for cash) and careless ownership. you are immune from liability if you have reported it lost or stolen, however.
any and all taxes from gun sales go directly to police forces and, as best as possible, are earmarked for anti-smuggling law enforcement (i think the ATF handles that? so maybe they'd be the chief benificiary) in an effort to minimize illegal arms smuggling. though i TRULY doubt many guns used in street crimes in the US were obtained via smuggling (ill bet anything they were almost all bought legally in the US at first), since you raise it as a concern i will address it.
sellers of guns have to be licensed similar to buyers/owners, only with stricter standards. background checks perhaps (chiefly for moral turpitude). they have to keep track of what stock they buy though not necessarily who they sell it to. they would be immune from prosecution for legally sold guns. it would just be a tool for law enforcement to try to track the path of guns used in crimes by narrowing the field, so to speak. gun shows pose an interesting problem. im not quite clear on what purpose they serve within the gun culture, so im leaning towards a temporary permit of sorts. if you dont want to be a store owner/seller but want to be more than just a buyer, you can get limited permits for gun shows (or if you, for instance, DO want to sell your gun to a friend) that allows you to do so, but you would have to provide info on all stock and keep records of who buys that stock (but again, it is not tracked by the government... more of an honor system with penalties for intentional fraud). again, i am less sure here becos im not entirely sure how gun shows fit into this.
basically, the intent being to keep government out of the picture while increasing the individual's responsibility for his/her own gun use. less paperwork and ineffective oversight. you are smart about your gun use, and you have nothing to worry about, from the government or anyone else. you are careless and it could cause you serious problems.
ive never heard of licensing gun owners... i was under the impression it was something they've been fighting tooth and nail for years. ive never head that you HAD to take safety classes to own or buy a gun. ive also never heard of anyone being held liable for a crime committed with their gun. i also understand we DO have lengthy and expensive background checks which seem foolish to me. ive also never heard that gun sale taxes are earmarked.
what, specifically, in my post has already been done? becos ive run this by many gun-advocates who seemed to think it's pretty reasonable and significantly different from our current laws.
ive never heard of licensing gun owners... i was under the impression it was something they've been fighting tooth and nail for years. ive never head that you HAD to take safety classes to own or buy a gun. ive also never heard of anyone being held liable for a crime committed with their gun. i also understand we DO have lengthy and expensive background checks which seem foolish to me. ive also never heard that gun sale taxes are earmarked.
what, specifically, in my post has already been done? becos ive run this by many gun-advocates who seemed to think it's pretty reasonable and significantly different from our current laws.
first; when you buy a gun; your information is submitted to the government and held as the owner of that gun. this registers the gun to the owner. it is at this time the background check is done. i tried pushing through a bill that would require gun saftey classes be taught in all schools. education is our best defence. this was shot down but anyone applying for a CCW must take a course and qualify at the range. in addition; applicants are required to submitt fingerprints to the fbi. another way the owners are registered. in many states; gun owners are required to register with the state police. illinois has something called a FOID which is required prior to owning a gun.
there are many cases where a gun owner was prosecuted if his gun was used to committ a crime when negligence could be proved. if your car is stolen and the theif kills someone trying to get away; the car owner is not prosecuted for the death. same with guns. if you are the victim of a crime why should you be prosecuted for something someone else did? negligence is prosecuted however.
most firearm sales are earmarked for conservation. same as taxes on boats or any other item used for enjoying the outdoors. sportsmen contribute more to conservation through these taxes than any other entity. handguns have another tax which pays for the governments "paperwork" to keep track of owners.
first; when you buy a gun; your information is submitted to the government and held as the owner of that gun. this registers the gun to the owner. it is at this time the background check is done. i tried pushing through a bill that would require gun saftey classes be taught in all schools. education is our best defence. this was shot down but anyone applying for a CCW must take a course and qualify at the range. in addition; applicants are required to submitt fingerprints to the fbi. another way the owners are registered. in many states; gun owners are required to register with the state police. illinois has something called a FOID which is required prior to owning a gun.
there are many cases where a gun owner was prosecuted if his gun was used to committ a crime when negligence could be proved. if your car is stolen and the theif kills someone trying to get away; the car owner is not prosecuted for the death. same with guns. if you are the victim of a crime why should you be prosecuted for something someone else did? negligence is prosecuted however.
most firearm sales are earmarked for conservation. same as taxes on boats or any other item used for enjoying the outdoors. sportsmen contribute more to conservation through these taxes than any other entity. handguns have another tax which pays for the governments "paperwork" to keep track of owners.
and im proposing to do away with licensing each gun. did you read my post? license owners, not weapons. cut down on the paperwork. sneding fingerprints to the fbi: gone. background checks for each purchase: gone. i dont think gun classes should be taught in schools... why would we do that? we don't teach driving in schools and more people drive. that's ridiculous and pointlessly expensive cos most of those people will never own a gun. im trying to avoid tracking every handgun so we dont waste time and money with pointless paperwork. i was unaware of state laws regarding registering gun owners. but even then, im not proposing that. im proposing that if you want to buy or use a gun you get a license. having a driver's license doesn't mean that you do or have to own a car, only that you have the right to own one if you wish. i'm looking for a simple system... you want to buy or sell a gun, you prove you'll be safe via education and get your license. and that is the end of government involvement. they do nothing more.
ive still never heard of anyone being held liable for their gun being used in a crime. and if so, it's not often enough and the penalties should be far steeper. raise the visibility of that.
ah; ignorance is bliss. let's first look at the areas with the strictest gun laws; that's where you'll find the highest crime rates. now look to the 23 states that allow citizens to carry conceiled weapons. crime is the lowest.
Correlation does not imply causation.
now let's look at illegal weapons. an honest citizen will not buy an illegal weapon; ie: one smuggled into the country illegally. and a criminal cannot buy a legal firearm.
so what do stricter gun laws do? they create a black market. so in order to control the guns that get into the hands of criminals; we must attack the smuggling of guns.
somehow we must get it out of our heads that punishing innocent people will deter crime. my guns should only scare you if you are going to attack me.
I'm for stricter or smarter gun laws everywhere. If there are places where you can march in a store and walk out 10 minutes later, I think there's a problem.
I don't think gun safety classes should be taught in school, I think people should take these classes before they can purchase a gun. Thorough background checks, not just in store but also at gun shows and when people sell their guns I think it should go through a third party.
Just some ideas.
Oh yeah and instead of a war on drugs, a war on illegal fire arms. And call it the 'war on terror', that should work.
I always wondered why gun owners think stricter or smarter gun laws take away their freedoms?
it's almost funny how people come to the realization of what their fundamental freedoms should be. for example; when hitler disarmed germany the people thought it was a move towards a more civilized society. when the nazi machine took full swing; they realized they were dooped and only disarmed so they couldn't resist a dictator. when the us starts talking about banning guns; i'll start hoarding them.
It's almost funny how some citizens cling to the belief that a gun - even an assault rifle - will do anything against a government armed with tanks, missiles, bombs, fighter jets and even nuclear weapons.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It's almost funny how some citizens cling to the belief that a gun - even an assault rifle - will do anything against a government armed with tanks, missiles, bombs, fighter jets and even nuclear weapons.
which is why i've said that people clinging to this notion of the 2nd amendment as a hedge against government misfeasance should be lobbying for their right to own heavy artillery.
and im proposing to do away with licensing each gun. did you read my post? license owners, not weapons. cut down on the paperwork. sneding fingerprints to the fbi: gone. background checks for each purchase: gone. i dont think gun classes should be taught in schools... why would we do that? we don't teach driving in schools and more people drive. that's ridiculous and pointlessly expensive cos most of those people will never own a gun. im trying to avoid tracking every handgun so we dont waste time and money with pointless paperwork. i was unaware of state laws regarding registering gun owners. but even then, im not proposing that. im proposing that if you want to buy or use a gun you get a license. having a driver's license doesn't mean that you do or have to own a car, only that you have the right to own one if you wish. i'm looking for a simple system... you want to buy or sell a gun, you prove you'll be safe via education and get your license. and that is the end of government involvement. they do nothing more.
ive still never heard of anyone being held liable for their gun being used in a crime. and if so, it's not often enough and the penalties should be far steeper. raise the visibility of that.
i; and all my sisters took drivers ed in school. in fact; everyone i know took drivers ed in school.
because education is our best defence against gun violence; it should be taught in schools. i got my first gun on my 12th birthday. in fact; everyone got their first .22 at age 12 or 13. there has yet to be a gun crime in that town. when someone learns the destructive power of firearms; they don't use them for violence. education will also teach those what to do if they find a gun. it happens. a fleeing criminal will toss a gun only to be found by some kid. the other reason is it would dismiss the myths brought about by hollywood and video games.
frankly; i don't see why anyone would oppose teaching saftey.
oh; and i have a license. to carry conceiled weapons. about 80,000 people have such a license in arizona alone.
which is why i've said that people clinging to this notion of the 2nd amendment as a hedge against government misfeasance should be lobbying for their right to own heavy artillery.
I maintain the same thing. The right to bear arms is already meaningless.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i; and all my sisters took drivers ed in school. in fact; everyone i know took drivers ed in school.
because education is our best defence against gun violence; it should be taught in schools. i got my first gun on my 12th birthday. in fact; everyone got their first .22 at age 12 or 13. there has yet to be a gun crime in that town. when someone learns the destructive power of firearms; they don't use them for violence. education will also teach those what to do if they find a gun. it happens. a fleeing criminal will toss a gun only to be found by some kid. the other reason is it would dismiss the myths brought about by hollywood and video games.
frankly; i don't see why anyone would oppose teaching saftey.
oh; and i have a license. to carry conceiled weapons. about 80,000 people have such a license in arizona alone.
you live in a community that is big on that. are you truly telling me we should be handing .22s out to 12 and 13 yr old kids in urban nyc? in small towns, there aren't gun crimes becos everyone knows everyone and such a crime could not go undetected. not so in urban environments. i dont think teaching shooting classes in there is going to do any good. and in those places, driving lessons are separate from school. small towns roll them up becos driving and shooting are integral to the way of life in more rural areas and it's cheaper to do it that way.
ohio has a concealed carry law too. im talking about expanding that to guns in general. and doing away with all the rest of those requirements.
the bottom line is, different communities have different needs. people living in urban areas have no need for a gun except for killing other people. nobody's hunting in central park. the problem is, 2nd amendment nuts see their tiny hick town and go "see, guns aren't a problem, we ALL have guns and no one gets shot." becos their incidents of violent crimes are miniscule compared to urban environments in general and guns would make no difference one way or the other. they're not preventing crime in those towns, and they're not adding to crime in urban areas. but they are adding the amount of people dying by guns in urban areas and that must be addressed. the problem is laws are uniform and so a person in bucktown, ohio sees some law and starts ranting about his 2nd amendment rights (rights that probably will not be affected anyway) when the legislation could potentially save hundred of lives in the inner city.
It's almost funny how some citizens cling to the belief that a gun - even an assault rifle - will do anything against a government armed with tanks, missiles, bombs, fighter jets and even nuclear weapons.
i was a gunsmith for many years. when the brady law was announced; i sold more asault weapons than ever before. also 30 and 50 round magazines. when something is about to be banned; the public wants one. for example; prior to the gun control act of 1968; gun sales were down to a record low. the gun control act made the public
1) race to buy before the law was enacted
2) buy before laws got stricter.
since the gun control act; gun sales have boomed. new weapons and new technology have greatly improved guns.
i was a gunsmith for many years. when the brady law was announced; i sold more asault weapons than ever before. also 30 and 50 round magazines. when something is about to be banned; the public wants one. for example; prior to the gun control act of 1968; gun sales were down to a record low. the gun control act made the public
1) race to buy before the law was enacted
2) buy before laws got stricter.
since the gun control act; gun sales have boomed. new weapons and new technology have greatly improved guns.
I understand all that. My point is you might as well be armed with rocks as much good as legal guns will do against our government's military.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I understand all that. My point is you might as well be armed with rocks as much good as legal guns will do against our government's military.
first; the military cannot be deployed on american soil unless martial law is declared. only the national guard. the us cannot bomb american soil. the national guard cannot guard the border properly. law enforcement cannot control crime. if the secret militias want to take the government; they can. they have rocket launchers and most military weapons hidden in bunkers all over the country. we/they are well prepared.
first; the military cannot be deployed on american soil unless martial law is declared. only the national guard. the us cannot bomb american soil. the national guard cannot guard the border properly. law enforcement cannot control crime. if the secret militias want to take the government; they can. they have rocket launchers and most military weapons hidden in bunkers all over the country. we/they are well prepared.
All I'm saying is the 2nd amendment is a joke at this point. People are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.
Back when it came into being, the right to own a rifle put you on relatively equal footing with the government. Not so anymore.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
first; the military cannot be deployed on american soil unless martial law is declared. only the national guard. the us cannot bomb american soil. the national guard cannot guard the border properly. law enforcement cannot control crime.
If the time ever comes that the people will need to defend themselves against the gov't, I don't think the gov't will care about any of this.
if the secret militias want to take the government; they can. they have rocket launchers and most military weapons hidden in bunkers all over the country. we/they are well prepared.
it's very illegal. but when you realize that the writers of the constitution intended the people to have the most modern weapons available; the laws are illegal.
first; the military cannot be deployed on american soil unless martial law is declared. only the national guard. the us cannot bomb american soil. the national guard cannot guard the border properly. law enforcement cannot control crime. if the secret militias want to take the government; they can. they have rocket launchers and most military weapons hidden in bunkers all over the country. we/they are well prepared.
if you don't think you have to worry about the military being deployed, what is the the worry about the 2nd amendment anyway? you think if you crazies start killing national guardsman they're not going to put the military on the ground to stop you? and most of the citizens will be backing the government in that case.
the right to own guns as discussed today has nothing to do with the original purposes of the second amendment.
and i notice you have not managed a reply to my post about the differences between gun rights in urban cities and rural areas. though it's kinda irrelevant now that i see where you're coming from.
All I'm saying is the 2nd amendment is a joke at this point. People are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.
Back when it came into being, the right to own a rifle put you on relatively equal footing with the government. Not so anymore.
then many laws are a joke. freedom of speech is a joke. the fifth ammendment is a joke. all men are not equal; not as long as affirmative action exists.
then many laws are a joke. freedom of speech is a joke. the fifth ammendment is a joke. all men are not equal; not as long as affirmative action exists.
affirmative action has never existed in the form i imagine you're bitching about... quotas and whatnot. they have never been legal and never will be.
you live in a community that is big on that. are you truly telling me we should be handing .22s out to 12 and 13 yr old kids in urban nyc? in small towns, there aren't gun crimes becos everyone knows everyone and such a crime could not go undetected. not so in urban environments. i dont think teaching shooting classes in there is going to do any good. and in those places, driving lessons are separate from school. small towns roll them up becos driving and shooting are integral to the way of life in more rural areas and it's cheaper to do it that way.
ohio has a concealed carry law too. im talking about expanding that to guns in general. and doing away with all the rest of those requirements.
the bottom line is, different communities have different needs. people living in urban areas have no need for a gun except for killing other people. nobody's hunting in central park. the problem is, 2nd amendment nuts see their tiny hick town and go "see, guns aren't a problem, we ALL have guns and no one gets shot." becos their incidents of violent crimes are miniscule compared to urban environments in general and guns would make no difference one way or the other. they're not preventing crime in those towns, and they're not adding to crime in urban areas. but they are adding the amount of people dying by guns in urban areas and that must be addressed. the problem is laws are uniform and so a person in bucktown, ohio sees some law and starts ranting about his 2nd amendment rights (rights that probably will not be affected anyway) when the legislation could potentially save hundred of lives in the inner city.
many schools still have archery as part of the PE course. why not add gun saftey? urban ares need gun saftey classes more than rural areas. i don't propose handing out anything to anyone. but if you visit a gun range you will find some of the most respectful 12 year olds you'll ever meet. it'll cost you nothing to go look. i've lived in cities; suburbs and remote areas. in rural areas kids have full access to their guns. in cities; the parents lock up the guns and the kids only have access at the range.
there's 2 places i carry a gun. first is urban areas. that's where it's needed the most. second is dangerous areas where rattlesnakes are likely or areas with mountain lion activity. so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead. he needs to know that he won't walk away like in the movies or hit reset like in video games.
then many laws are a joke. freedom of speech is a joke. the fifth ammendment is a joke. all men are not equal; not as long as affirmative action exists.
I'll agree many laws are a joke...including the 2nd Amendment.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
many schools still have archery as part of the PE course. why not add gun saftey? urban ares need gun saftey classes more than rural areas. i don't propose handing out anything to anyone. but if you visit a gun range you will find some of the most respectful 12 year olds you'll ever meet. it'll cost you nothing to go look. i've lived in cities; suburbs and remote areas. in rural areas kids have full access to their guns. in cities; the parents lock up the guns and the kids only have access at the range.
there's 2 places i carry a gun. first is urban areas. that's where it's needed the most. second is dangerous areas where rattlesnakes are likely or areas with mountain lion activity. so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead. he needs to know that he won't walk away like in the movies or hit reset like in video games.
So a human life is worth less to you than the contents of your wallet or value of your car?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
many schools still have archery as part of the PE course. why not add gun saftey? urban ares need gun saftey classes more than rural areas. i don't propose handing out anything to anyone. but if you visit a gun range you will find some of the most respectful 12 year olds you'll ever meet. it'll cost you nothing to go look. i've lived in cities; suburbs and remote areas. in rural areas kids have full access to their guns. in cities; the parents lock up the guns and the kids only have access at the range.
there's 2 places i carry a gun. first is urban areas. that's where it's needed the most. second is dangerous areas where rattlesnakes are likely or areas with mountain lion activity. so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead. he needs to know that he won't walk away like in the movies or hit reset like in video games.
you truly are out of touch then.
ive never heard of a single school that had archery classes in PE. you must really live in the boondocks. yes, if you visit a gun range maybe. but those are going to be kids with parents who are responsible gun owners and were raised in a culture where guns are tools. in the inner city, the kids dont have parents and grow up in a culture where a gun is a weapon, and a way to prove you're tough. what cities did you live in? what neighborhoods?
also, you implicitly acknowledge my point... you carry a gun in urban areas becos you need it. why? becos there are a lot of yahoos with guns down there who have no business carrying one. i dont think a school program is going to change that. you make the ones who truly want one work for it so they will take it seriously and do the best you can to keep the rest of them from laying hands on one.
how quickly will the american people turn against the government if it starts bombing cities and killing innocent people?
Very quickly I imagine. That doesn't change anything. If the government starts bombing cities and killing innocent people (US citizens, of course) your guns won't do anything, they're already bombing you.
it's very illegal. but when you realize that the writers of the constitution intended the people to have the most modern weapons available; the laws are illegal.
So when will you start your revolution. The government is taking away your rights and liberties with illegal laws and yet here you are boldly claiming that you have guns in case you need them to defend you from the government?
so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead. he needs to know that he won't walk away like in the movies or hit reset like in video games.
So your wallet and car are worth more than human life?
So your wallet and car are worth more than human life?
in a word; yes. but it goes beyond that. if you attack me i will defend myself. the supreme court has backed that right many times. i have no problem killing some scum that attacks me. scum the courts will only put back on the street.
in a word; yes. but it goes beyond that. if you attack me i will defend myself. the supreme court has backed that right many times. i have no problem killing some scum that attacks me. scum the courts will only put back on the street.
to use lethal force in self defense you have to have a reasonable fear of physical harm or death. you can't just shoot a guy who tries to pick your pocket.
Comments
the gun control act of 1968 has done more to increase crime than any other law.
you have to get a license to buy, use, or possess a gun, just like a car. it requires education about safety practices and so on and so forth, also a shooting requirement as well most likely. you have to renew the license every so often and felonies or violent misdemeanors (im thinking especially of domestic abuse) will cost you that license. once you have a license, you can buy any gun you want with no waiting period or background check. you do not have to register or track the gun, but you do have to keep any paperwork related to the sale in your possession (ie. cant throw it out, it's like a car title only not held by the government). licenses would cover and subsequently allow all of the following: simple ownership, hunting, home defense, concealed carry. there would be no denial of a license unless you are a felon or something along those lines (similar to a driver's license... if you want it and pass the course, you get one).
if your gun is lost or stolen you must report it along with documentation of said gun (only to help guide the search if the gun turns up in a crime). losing guns frequently can cost you your license (careless ownership), but having it stolen simply relieves you of responsibility for the gun. there would be stiff penalties for faking a theft though. becos i would also say that if your gun is used in a crime, you are strictly liable for a felony of some sort (not the crime committed, but some new crime)... this deters off-market sales (selling to some crackhead becos you're strapped for cash) and careless ownership. you are immune from liability if you have reported it lost or stolen, however.
any and all taxes from gun sales go directly to police forces and, as best as possible, are earmarked for anti-smuggling law enforcement (i think the ATF handles that? so maybe they'd be the chief benificiary) in an effort to minimize illegal arms smuggling. though i TRULY doubt many guns used in street crimes in the US were obtained via smuggling (ill bet anything they were almost all bought legally in the US at first), since you raise it as a concern i will address it.
sellers of guns have to be licensed similar to buyers/owners, only with stricter standards. background checks perhaps (chiefly for moral turpitude). they have to keep track of what stock they buy though not necessarily who they sell it to. they would be immune from prosecution for legally sold guns. it would just be a tool for law enforcement to try to track the path of guns used in crimes by narrowing the field, so to speak. gun shows pose an interesting problem. im not quite clear on what purpose they serve within the gun culture, so im leaning towards a temporary permit of sorts. if you dont want to be a store owner/seller but want to be more than just a buyer, you can get limited permits for gun shows (or if you, for instance, DO want to sell your gun to a friend) that allows you to do so, but you would have to provide info on all stock and keep records of who buys that stock (but again, it is not tracked by the government... more of an honor system with penalties for intentional fraud). again, i am less sure here becos im not entirely sure how gun shows fit into this.
basically, the intent being to keep government out of the picture while increasing the individual's responsibility for his/her own gun use. less paperwork and ineffective oversight. you are smart about your gun use, and you have nothing to worry about, from the government or anyone else. you are careless and it could cause you serious problems.
we have all this already.
ive never heard of licensing gun owners... i was under the impression it was something they've been fighting tooth and nail for years. ive never head that you HAD to take safety classes to own or buy a gun. ive also never heard of anyone being held liable for a crime committed with their gun. i also understand we DO have lengthy and expensive background checks which seem foolish to me. ive also never heard that gun sale taxes are earmarked.
what, specifically, in my post has already been done? becos ive run this by many gun-advocates who seemed to think it's pretty reasonable and significantly different from our current laws.
first; when you buy a gun; your information is submitted to the government and held as the owner of that gun. this registers the gun to the owner. it is at this time the background check is done. i tried pushing through a bill that would require gun saftey classes be taught in all schools. education is our best defence. this was shot down but anyone applying for a CCW must take a course and qualify at the range. in addition; applicants are required to submitt fingerprints to the fbi. another way the owners are registered. in many states; gun owners are required to register with the state police. illinois has something called a FOID which is required prior to owning a gun.
there are many cases where a gun owner was prosecuted if his gun was used to committ a crime when negligence could be proved. if your car is stolen and the theif kills someone trying to get away; the car owner is not prosecuted for the death. same with guns. if you are the victim of a crime why should you be prosecuted for something someone else did? negligence is prosecuted however.
most firearm sales are earmarked for conservation. same as taxes on boats or any other item used for enjoying the outdoors. sportsmen contribute more to conservation through these taxes than any other entity. handguns have another tax which pays for the governments "paperwork" to keep track of owners.
and im proposing to do away with licensing each gun. did you read my post? license owners, not weapons. cut down on the paperwork. sneding fingerprints to the fbi: gone. background checks for each purchase: gone. i dont think gun classes should be taught in schools... why would we do that? we don't teach driving in schools and more people drive. that's ridiculous and pointlessly expensive cos most of those people will never own a gun. im trying to avoid tracking every handgun so we dont waste time and money with pointless paperwork. i was unaware of state laws regarding registering gun owners. but even then, im not proposing that. im proposing that if you want to buy or use a gun you get a license. having a driver's license doesn't mean that you do or have to own a car, only that you have the right to own one if you wish. i'm looking for a simple system... you want to buy or sell a gun, you prove you'll be safe via education and get your license. and that is the end of government involvement. they do nothing more.
ive still never heard of anyone being held liable for their gun being used in a crime. and if so, it's not often enough and the penalties should be far steeper. raise the visibility of that.
Correlation does not imply causation.
I'm for stricter or smarter gun laws everywhere. If there are places where you can march in a store and walk out 10 minutes later, I think there's a problem.
I don't think gun safety classes should be taught in school, I think people should take these classes before they can purchase a gun. Thorough background checks, not just in store but also at gun shows and when people sell their guns I think it should go through a third party.
Just some ideas.
Oh yeah and instead of a war on drugs, a war on illegal fire arms. And call it the 'war on terror', that should work.
I always wondered why gun owners think stricter or smarter gun laws take away their freedoms?
naděje umírá poslední
It's almost funny how some citizens cling to the belief that a gun - even an assault rifle - will do anything against a government armed with tanks, missiles, bombs, fighter jets and even nuclear weapons.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
which is why i've said that people clinging to this notion of the 2nd amendment as a hedge against government misfeasance should be lobbying for their right to own heavy artillery.
i; and all my sisters took drivers ed in school. in fact; everyone i know took drivers ed in school.
because education is our best defence against gun violence; it should be taught in schools. i got my first gun on my 12th birthday. in fact; everyone got their first .22 at age 12 or 13. there has yet to be a gun crime in that town. when someone learns the destructive power of firearms; they don't use them for violence. education will also teach those what to do if they find a gun. it happens. a fleeing criminal will toss a gun only to be found by some kid. the other reason is it would dismiss the myths brought about by hollywood and video games.
frankly; i don't see why anyone would oppose teaching saftey.
oh; and i have a license. to carry conceiled weapons. about 80,000 people have such a license in arizona alone.
I maintain the same thing. The right to bear arms is already meaningless.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
you live in a community that is big on that. are you truly telling me we should be handing .22s out to 12 and 13 yr old kids in urban nyc? in small towns, there aren't gun crimes becos everyone knows everyone and such a crime could not go undetected. not so in urban environments. i dont think teaching shooting classes in there is going to do any good. and in those places, driving lessons are separate from school. small towns roll them up becos driving and shooting are integral to the way of life in more rural areas and it's cheaper to do it that way.
ohio has a concealed carry law too. im talking about expanding that to guns in general. and doing away with all the rest of those requirements.
the bottom line is, different communities have different needs. people living in urban areas have no need for a gun except for killing other people. nobody's hunting in central park. the problem is, 2nd amendment nuts see their tiny hick town and go "see, guns aren't a problem, we ALL have guns and no one gets shot." becos their incidents of violent crimes are miniscule compared to urban environments in general and guns would make no difference one way or the other. they're not preventing crime in those towns, and they're not adding to crime in urban areas. but they are adding the amount of people dying by guns in urban areas and that must be addressed. the problem is laws are uniform and so a person in bucktown, ohio sees some law and starts ranting about his 2nd amendment rights (rights that probably will not be affected anyway) when the legislation could potentially save hundred of lives in the inner city.
i was a gunsmith for many years. when the brady law was announced; i sold more asault weapons than ever before. also 30 and 50 round magazines. when something is about to be banned; the public wants one. for example; prior to the gun control act of 1968; gun sales were down to a record low. the gun control act made the public
1) race to buy before the law was enacted
2) buy before laws got stricter.
since the gun control act; gun sales have boomed. new weapons and new technology have greatly improved guns.
That's a nice fairy tale.
naděje umírá poslední
I understand all that. My point is you might as well be armed with rocks as much good as legal guns will do against our government's military.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
first; the military cannot be deployed on american soil unless martial law is declared. only the national guard. the us cannot bomb american soil. the national guard cannot guard the border properly. law enforcement cannot control crime. if the secret militias want to take the government; they can. they have rocket launchers and most military weapons hidden in bunkers all over the country. we/they are well prepared.
All I'm saying is the 2nd amendment is a joke at this point. People are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.
Back when it came into being, the right to own a rifle put you on relatively equal footing with the government. Not so anymore.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If the time ever comes that the people will need to defend themselves against the gov't, I don't think the gov't will care about any of this.
Isn't that illegal?
naděje umírá poslední
how quickly will the american people turn against the government if it starts bombing cities and killing innocent people?
it's very illegal. but when you realize that the writers of the constitution intended the people to have the most modern weapons available; the laws are illegal.
if you don't think you have to worry about the military being deployed, what is the the worry about the 2nd amendment anyway? you think if you crazies start killing national guardsman they're not going to put the military on the ground to stop you? and most of the citizens will be backing the government in that case.
the right to own guns as discussed today has nothing to do with the original purposes of the second amendment.
and i notice you have not managed a reply to my post about the differences between gun rights in urban cities and rural areas. though it's kinda irrelevant now that i see where you're coming from.
then many laws are a joke. freedom of speech is a joke. the fifth ammendment is a joke. all men are not equal; not as long as affirmative action exists.
affirmative action has never existed in the form i imagine you're bitching about... quotas and whatnot. they have never been legal and never will be.
many schools still have archery as part of the PE course. why not add gun saftey? urban ares need gun saftey classes more than rural areas. i don't propose handing out anything to anyone. but if you visit a gun range you will find some of the most respectful 12 year olds you'll ever meet. it'll cost you nothing to go look. i've lived in cities; suburbs and remote areas. in rural areas kids have full access to their guns. in cities; the parents lock up the guns and the kids only have access at the range.
there's 2 places i carry a gun. first is urban areas. that's where it's needed the most. second is dangerous areas where rattlesnakes are likely or areas with mountain lion activity. so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead. he needs to know that he won't walk away like in the movies or hit reset like in video games.
I'll agree many laws are a joke...including the 2nd Amendment.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So a human life is worth less to you than the contents of your wallet or value of your car?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
you truly are out of touch then.
ive never heard of a single school that had archery classes in PE. you must really live in the boondocks. yes, if you visit a gun range maybe. but those are going to be kids with parents who are responsible gun owners and were raised in a culture where guns are tools. in the inner city, the kids dont have parents and grow up in a culture where a gun is a weapon, and a way to prove you're tough. what cities did you live in? what neighborhoods?
also, you implicitly acknowledge my point... you carry a gun in urban areas becos you need it. why? becos there are a lot of yahoos with guns down there who have no business carrying one. i dont think a school program is going to change that. you make the ones who truly want one work for it so they will take it seriously and do the best you can to keep the rest of them from laying hands on one.
Very quickly I imagine. That doesn't change anything. If the government starts bombing cities and killing innocent people (US citizens, of course) your guns won't do anything, they're already bombing you.
So when will you start your revolution. The government is taking away your rights and liberties with illegal laws and yet here you are boldly claiming that you have guns in case you need them to defend you from the government?
naděje umírá poslední
So your wallet and car are worth more than human life?
naděje umírá poslední
in a word; yes. but it goes beyond that. if you attack me i will defend myself. the supreme court has backed that right many times. i have no problem killing some scum that attacks me. scum the courts will only put back on the street.
to use lethal force in self defense you have to have a reasonable fear of physical harm or death. you can't just shoot a guy who tries to pick your pocket.