Founders and Framers on the People's Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[islandman]

So write a law that can be applied.....

Until the gun industry fully supports such a law, you'll end up with one that is more akin to swiss cheese and doesn't apply to gun shows and private gun sales.

As though having to register a weapon somehow means that the Feds have taken one's man-card away.

 

[ryan8558]

It's as compelling as his.

I'm not being paid to educate morons.

So you're being paid to educate the non-morons?

 

[islandman]

For the record, while I'm no fan of guns, I fully support every citizen's right to them. Where I have an issue is at the intersection of ownership and the gun industry .

That is to say, there are too many legal loopholes by which the gun industry can and does get weapons into the hands of the criminal element. Gun owners - in part - seem to take the responsibility of ownership very lightly. On a states level, the issue is compounded in that some states have very strict requirements for mandatory training classes. Other states have more lax requirements, often requiring only an NRA class on handgun safety. A few states have no training requirement whatsoever. In WA, for example, you don't need training - special or otherwise - to carry a concealed weapon. Even the NRA does not make training a prerequisite to membership. Any schmuck with $35 can join, it seems.

The key is responsibility. Even the Founders required armed citizens to be well-trained and well-supplied (out of their own pockets). Somewhere in the subsequent 200+ years the "right" to bear arms became a cry for those who want the toy, but not the responsibility of ownership.

 

[koalabear]

For the record, while I'm no fan of guns, I fully support every citizen's right to them. Where I have an issue is at the intersection of ownership and the gun industry .

That is to say, there are too many legal loopholes by which the gun industry can and does get weapons into the hands of the criminal element. Gun owners - in part - seem to take the responsibility of ownership very lightly. On a states level, the issue is compounded in that some states have very strict requirements for mandatory training classes. Other states have more lax requirements, often requiring only an NRA class on handgun safety. A few states have no training requirement whatsoever. In WA, for example, you don't need training - special or otherwise - to carry a concealed weapon. Even the NRA does not make training a prerequisite to membership. Any schmuck with $35 can join, it seems.

The key is responsibility. Even the Founders required armed citizens to be well-trained and well-supplied (out of their own pockets). Somewhere in the subsequent 200+ years the "right" to bear arms became a cry for those who want the toy, but not the responsibility of ownership.

Do you realize car manufacturers sell to felons!!!!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Until the gun industry fully supports such a law, you'll end up with one that is more akin to swiss cheese and doesn't apply to gun shows and private gun sales.

I agree with you fully on this one.

As though having to register a weapon somehow means that the Feds have taken one's man-card away.

See I don't think it's the guns that need to be registered because that fails...here is why.

The cat was let out of the bag a long time ago, how many millions of old, or home made, "missing" weapons etc. are still going to be loose? A fucking shit load.

Register the people, which accomplishes that whole enforcement bit at the source of nefarious acts, the people committing them. You have a licence to buy/own/carry? All good...have a nice day mam/sir! No licence? Gun confiscated, person illegally in possession get's a good ol' dose of Reaganism with a 20 year mandatory minimum Draws a super clear line in the sand for civilians and LEO's alike AND makes illegal possession a fucking nightmare only those that truly give 0 fucks (and are just going to do shit anyhow) are willing to accept.

Personally I think the licence to carry should require the same training/qualifications of a standard FBI field agent and be allowed to carry 100% nation wide.

 

[massageguy1]

You mean like this one...



...right?

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly and consistently that 'militia' means any citizen who might conceivably be called up to serve. I understand your confusion, but there's a lot of precedent to argue against your interpretation .

 

[islandman]

See I don't think it's the guns that need to be registered because that fails...here is why.

The cat was let out of the bag a long time ago, how many millions of old, or home made, "missing" weapons etc. are still going to be loose? A fucking shit load.

Register the people, which accomplishes that whole enforcement bit at the source of nefarious acts, the people committing them. You have a licence to buy/own/carry? All good...have a nice day mam/sir! No licence? Gun confiscated, person illegally in possession get's a good ol' dose of Reaganism with a 20 year mandatory minimum Draws a super clear line in the sand for civilians and LEO's alike AND makes illegal possession a fucking nightmare only those that truly give 0 fucks (and are just going to do shit anyhow) are willing to accept.

Personally I think the licence to carry should require the same training/qualifications of a standard FBI field agent and be allowed to carry 100% nation wide.

The loophole I envision in registering the owner and not the gun(s) is that it does nothing to eradicate the problem of more guns joining the millions of "missing" weapons already out there.

For example, you obtain a gun license. Your first purchase is a handgun for home protection. You present your license to WalMart/gunsmith/etc, and upon confirmation of validity, you walk out with your purchase. Then you go out and make a second purchase: a hunting rifle, another two handguns and a shotgun. Since you have a valid gun permit, no muss, no fuss.

Since the second-purchase guns themselves aren't registered to you, there's nothing stopping you from heading over to the nearest city and selling them to the highest bidder. Should these weapons be used in a crime, there's no way to trace it back to you. Ergo, there is no deterrent to you going out and selling more guns at a mark-up, i.e., capitalism.

But if you require both - a license and the registration of purchased weapons to said licensee - then suddenly you're responsible should said weapons leave your care and are used for nefarious purposes. There will be exclusions, such as someone breaking into your house and making off with your guns, which he then sells to whatnot drug gang. But, assuming your weapons were stored in accordance with the regs of your locale, you're in the clear.

Here too, capitalism comes into play. If you reduce the supply of new "missing" guns to the pool of guns available for nefarious purposes, that will only serve to drive up the prices of guns currently in that pool, and hopefully up to a price-point whereby not every gang-banger with $300 in his pocket can buy a glock.

To be clear, I don't think there should be a cap on the number of guns a licensed gun-owner can own, so long as this dual-registration is in place. 1 or 100, the responsibility rests with you. Don't care if you're a nut-job who is stockpiling weapons for the coming Armageddon; I want the opportunist who is making bank on the sale of every gun to the bad guys.

Do you realize car manufacturers sell to felons!!!!

You keep saying that, but the logic remains ridiculous.

Especially given car manufacturers transfer vehicle titles to the purchaser.

 

[koalabear]

The loophole I envision in registering the owner and not the gun(s) is that it does nothing to eradicate the problem of more guns joining the millions of "missing" weapons already out there.

For example, you obtain a gun license. Your first purchase is a handgun for home protection. You present your license to WalMart/gunsmith/etc, and upon confirmation of validity, you walk out with your purchase. Then you go out and make a second purchase: a hunting rifle, another two handguns and a shotgun. Since you have a valid gun permit, no muss, no fuss.

Since the second-purchase guns themselves aren't registered to you, there's nothing stopping you from heading over to the nearest city and selling them to the highest bidder. Should these weapons be used in a crime, there's no way to trace it back to you. Ergo, there is no deterrent to you going out and selling more guns at a mark-up, i.e., capitalism.

But if you require both - a license and the registration of purchased weapons to said licensee - then suddenly you're responsible should said weapons leave your care and are used for nefarious purposes. There will be exclusions, such as someone breaking into your house and making off with your guns, which he then sells to whatnot drug gang. But, assuming your weapons were stored in accordance with the regs of your locale, you're in the clear.

Here too, capitalism comes into play. If you reduce the supply of new "missing" guns to the pool of guns available for nefarious purposes, that will only serve to drive up the prices of guns currently in that pool, and hopefully up to a price-point whereby not every gang-banger with $300 in his pocket can buy a glock.

To be clear, I don't think there should be a cap on the number of guns a licensed gun-owner can own, so long as this dual-registration is in place. 1 or 100, the responsibility rests with you. Don't care if you're a nut-job who is stockpiling weapons for the coming Armageddon; I want the opportunist who is making bank on the sale of every gun to the bad guys.




You keep saying that, but the logic remains ridiculous.

Especially given car manufacturers transfer vehicle titles to the purchaser.

*points and laughs*

 

[islandman]

*points and laughs*

I take it that that's your typical response when you have nothing substantive to add to the conversation.

No surprise there.

 

[koalabear]

I take it that that's your typical response when you have nothing substantive to add to the conversation.

No surprise there.

You are stupid and your posts prove it.

No surprise there.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Yes.
So write a law that can be applied.....

Bingo! You've shown no reason why the previous laws aren't being applied. You have no reason to believe that future laws would be applied. The laws just passed in Connecticut would have done nothing to prevent a murder, so why were they passed? The previous laws did nothing to prevent murder.

Except all laws are done that way and quite a few have resulted in major social changes far beyond beurocracy.

No, not all laws are done that way. Laws are supposed to be made after careful deliberation and examination. Lawmakers are supposed to be some of the best and brightest, and have hundreds of researchers to help them examine the problem.

Since Nixon it's pretty much been primarily a GOP money funnel, Reagan's support for the war on drugs sealed the deal. Not to mention look at all the red states that have decided to kick that Nixon/Reagan shit out of their state.

Oh, those poor democrats. You mean they were forced by the republican minority to vote on something? It's amazing how the democrat majority in the house and senate gets pushed around by those dastardly republicans.

Except you want to purchase a device who's primary design objective is to kill, with zero oversight....

Thus proving your ignorance. Guns are designed to launch a projectile, just like a bow or a slingshot. Killing people, killing paper targets, killing clay pigeons... that is a function of the person behind the trigger who decides where the projectile goes. With the exception of the military, guns in the hands of private citizens have been used throughout history as a means to procure food or have a fun afternoon, and not as tools for killing people.

You cannot slander, you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded building, you cannot give hate speeches, you cannot give speeches that incite violence, destruction of property or rioting, you cannot conduct religious activities in any official state operations or as a state official.

Again with ignoring facts. You can do all that you listed. People do those things every day. It is only after you do those acts that the laws are applied to you. Someone can take you to court for violating those laws, but there is no law in place to license or register you prior to the action.

When's the last time you saw a government agent passing out muzzles as you walked into the theater? That's right, that's never happened. So that means you could very well yell "fire" in a crowded building, and there's nothing to stop you. After you've yelled, you might be held liable for you actions, but you weren't censored beforehand out of fear of what might happen.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Even the NRA does not make training a prerequisite to membership. Any schmuck with $35 can join, it seems.

Based on a quick review of its membership application, I believe the NRA does not make training a prerequisite of membership because they don't even make gun ownership a prerequisite for membership.

Apparently the organization values all schmucks who simply support its objectives.

 

[islandman]

You are stupid and your posts prove it.

No surprise there.

Another substantive post.

It's a wonder why people don't buy into your "car manufacturers sell to felons too" analogy.

 

[koalabear]

Another substantive post.

It's a wonder why people don't buy into your "car manufacturers sell to felons too" analogy.

No doubt the ones that buy into your guns can't be traced crap.

 

[islandman]

Based on a quick review of its membership application, I believe the NRA does not make training a prerequisite of membership because they don't even make gun ownership a prerequisite for membership.

Apparently the organization values all schmucks who simply support its objectives.

You mean schmucks who will fork over $35/year even though they may not own a gun AND who simply support its objectives.

Cause I'm pretty sure you can't be a member if you're broke, regardless on how supportive you are of its objectives.

 

[islandman]

No doubt the ones that buy into your guns can't be traced crap.

Is that complete sentence? If it isn't, that would explain why it doesn't make sense.

 

[chillywilly2]

Is that complete sentence? If it isn't, that would explain why it doesn't make sense.

whatever

 

[koalabear]

whatever

You quoted before the UD edit could be done.

 

[islandman]

whatever

You figured out grammar, but syntax escapes you.

Well done.

 

[cjh]

Again with ignoring facts. You can do all that you listed. People do those things every day. It is only after you do those acts that the laws are applied to you. Someone can take you to court for violating those laws, but there is no law in place to license or register you prior to the action.

When's the last time you saw a government agent passing out muzzles as you walked into the theater? That's right, that's never happened. So that means you could very well yell "fire" in a crowded building, and there's nothing to stop you. After you've yelled, you might be held liable for you actions, but you weren't censored beforehand out of fear of what might happen.

So you are telling us that laws can be passed after we have done something to make something that we have already done after the fact?

And are you telling us that there are no permissible time, place, and manner restrictions, like having to get a permit to hold a protest march?

 

[cjh]

looks like some people got muzzled before they could speak freely.

Thirty-three people were charged Sunday after failing to obtain a DeWitt town permit to march into the town and protest the U.S. military’s use of unmanned drones.

The gathering, which included members of the Syracuse Peace Council and other groups from across the state, had intended to walk along East Molloy Road from Route 11 in Syracuse to the New York Air National Guard’s base at Hancock Field in DeWitt.

They were met at the town line by Onondaga County sheriff’s deputies, who said the group hadn’t applied for a permit with DeWitt.

All but one of those were arrested in front of the air base or near it on East Molloy Road. They were charged with violations and issued appearance tickets, according to Onondaga County Detective William Gabriel.

The 33rd person, John McConkey, 59, of Coatsville, Pa., was charged with resisting arrest, a misdemeanor, after lying down in the middle of East Molloy Road, Gabriel said. McConkey was arraigned in the village of East Syracuse and held at the Onondaga County Justice Center on $250 cash or $500 bond.

At least one man who drove to the protest separate from the march was seen in handcuffs and being put into a sheriff’s car after approaching the base’s gates. Others who approached the gates were met by deputies; at least one other was also cuffed and placed in a deputy’s car.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/military_protesters_turned_awa.html

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Incorrect, CH. Permits to march through town are required because you are using public right-of-ways and causing congestion. Filing a plan with the local government allows them to make plans to handle that congestion, including extra police to do traffic control around the venue. I don't agree with having to purchase a permit; you should be able to notify the government of your intent so they know to get ready for it. The money they get from permits isn't even enough to cover the cost of the "permit" agency.

That in no way, however, impacted your right to free speech or right to assemble.

They could have gone on the internet just like we are. They could have written the newspaper, or printed brochures.

Look at it like this: There is a law on the books that states you must buy permission from the government to hold an assembly in a public place. That law's been on the books for decades. The group you cite knowingly and willingly violated that law and was only punished after the damage was done.

Nowhere did anyone strip them of their right to assemble or their right to speak. They only said that if you're going to do it here, in a public space, you must file the appropriate paperwork with the government because you are using public space and causing congestion. You could assemble at someone's home or a private business. You can speak til your heart's content on the internet or through printed brochures.

No license needed to do either. No regulation to do either.

And when they did violate the law, they were punished. The damage was done, however. They were punished after the fact and not one letter in the law stopped them from breaking it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Filling for permission means the government has a say. Doesn't matter why.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The loophole I envision in registering the owner and not the gun(s) is that it does nothing to eradicate the problem of more guns joining the millions of "missing" weapons already out there.

Snipped for space not snark.

No longer an issue man, when a gun is first sold it's SN is tied to the purchaser already, a licence will just further solidify this record. For private sales it's in the private sellers best interest to fill out all paperwork etc and fallow the law regarding such sales or it could very well bite them in the ass if used in a crime. And if you're too dumb to do that then you deserve what you get. Mandatory licencing for purchase/possession is the missing lynch pin enforcement needs to ID who is allowed to carry and who isn't. The training/testing is just a basic competency issue use to filter out those who A) are too stupid to be carrying B) those who don't take carrying seriously enough to pass a standardized test from getting licensed.

Bingo!

Yea pretty much. And since you're legitimately trying to argue for a 100% lawless society I can no longer carry on any sort of realistic conversation with you because you're a tool. I suggest you move to Somalia immediately, Mogadishu is nice this time of year

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Filling for permission means the government has a say. Doesn't matter why.

Yep. And the government has abused that authority regularly in the past. So why do you want to give them more authority?

People freely assemble every day. People freely speak every day. It's only after they violate a law that they are held accountable, and there's no talk of any licensing or registration to prevent abuses in the future - or because someone else violated the law.