What is reasonable gun control...

[sarisataka]

Nobody even really gets around to a straight answer; at least not any that allows for much debate. I have had way too much time on my hands the last few days so I submit this for debate/argument/flame

Conflict of interest disclaimer- I own and carry a firearm daily, wherever legal. I am required to be an NRA member for business reasons but give no support beyond basic membership.



It will be assumed prohibited persons will be similar as is today

The NFA of 1934 and GCA of 1968 will be repealed. In their place will be the following restrictions:

1) The following may be purchased with an instant background check. No record of sale shall be required
A. Revolvers holding no more than 6 rounds
B. Non-semiautomatic rifles with a fixed magazine
C. Non semiautomatic shotguns with fixed magazines of no more than 8 rounds
D. Semiautomatic rifles with fixed magazine holding no more than 5 rounds
E. Semiautomatic shotguns with fixed magazines holding no more than 5 rounds
F. Any pistol or rifle of caliber .22LR or less, regardless of capacity
G. A onetime fee of $20 shall be charged at the time of purchase to be used as in 9) below

2) The following may be purchased with an instant background check and permanent file with local law enforcement to be updated at any transfer of the gun
A. Semiautomatic pistols
B. Semiautomatic rifles with fixed magazines of greater than 5 round capacity
C. Semiautomatic rifles with removable magazines
D. Magazine capacity will be capped at 30 rounds.
E. Owners of previously made magazines may turn them in, receiving a number of 30 round magazines equivalent to the capacity of the surrendered magazine, round up to the nearest number.
F. Non semiautomatic and semiautomatic shotguns of capacities greater than listed above
G. Shotguns with removable magazines
H. A onetime fee of $50 shall be charged at the time of purchase to be used as in 9) below

3) The following may be purchased with a 30 day background check and permanent file with ATF to be updated at any transfer of the gun through local law enforcement. Renewal of registration shall be made every 5 years through local law enforcement
A. Pistols capable of full automatic fire
B. Rifles capable of any burst or full auto firing
C. Rifles that are converted for bump firing
D. Pistols capable of generating muzzle energy greater than 200ft/lbs
E. Rifles or other long arm capable of generating muzzle energy of greater than 5000 ft/lbs
F. A fee of $50 shall be charged at the time registration, renewal or transfer, to be used as in 9) below

4) Open carry of firearms shall be permitted with government issued ID and completion of 16 hour course of training on justifiable use of force and shooting skill. Law enforcement may inspect ID with reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity or during a traffic stop. Openly carrying a gun is not grounds for suspicion of unlawful activity.

5) Concealed carry of a firearm shall be permitted with government issued ID, concealed carry permit and completion of 16 hour course of training on justifiable use of force and shooting skill. Training must be renewed every ten years. Law enforcement may inspect ID with reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity or during a traffic stop. A onetime fee of $100 shall be charged at the initial permit application to be used as in 9) below

6) Ammunition purchased in person will require a government issued ID and instant approval check

7) Ammunition
A. Ammunition purchased online must include purchasers government issued ID number to instant approval check
B. Online purchases of greater than 1000 rounds will be delivered to customer designated law enforcement where they shall be picked up in person upon confirmation of ID
C. A fee of $.01 shall be charge on each cartridge at purchase to be used as in 9) below

8) Opt-out
A. Businesses who do not choose to opt-out of allowing open or concealed carry shall be immune to civil liability suits
B. Businesses open to the public who choose to opt-out of allowing legal carry of firearms are assuming responsibility for their patrons and are liable to civil suits from any injury resulting from legal or illegal gun use
C. Businesses not open to the public who choose to opt-out of allowing legal carry of firearms are assuming responsibility for their employees and are liable to civil suits from any injury resulting from legal or illegal gun use
D. Private home owners may choose to not allow firearms into their dwellings without liability
E. Landlords may not prohibit their tenants from keeping firearms in rented property unless cohabiting with the landlord and the prohibition is included in a written tenant contract
F. Churches may choose to not allow firearms into their buildings without liability
G. Schools may choose to not allow firearms into their buildings without liability
H. Areas and building designated as ‘high-security’ locations may prohibit firearms. These locations must provide on-site armed security and conduct entry checks with metal detectors and/ or physical searches
I. Cities or other municipalities may enact greater restrictions on carry of firearms as follows
1. Prohibition of open carry- the entity shall pay a yearly fee of $10 per citizen, as of the most recent census, to be used as in 9) below
2. Prohibition of concealed carry- the entity shall pay a yearly fee of $25 per citizen, as of the most recent census, to be used as in 9) below
3. Prohibition of all carry- the entity shall pay a yearly fee of $50 per citizen, as of the most recent census, to be used as in 9) below
4. Prohibition of firearm ownership- the entity shall pay a yearly fee of $1000 per citizen, as of the most recent census, to be used as in 9) below. In addition, the entity is are assuming responsibility for their citizens and visitors therefore are liable to civil suits from any injury resulting from legal or illegal gun use

9) Usage of fees
A. All fees collected through the above shall go to the Justice department
B. Monies collected shall be put into an interest bearing fund to be used, as directed by Congress, with the following priorities
1. Benefit fund to the victims of gun violence or their families
2. Violence reduction programs
3. Liability insurance for gun owners. Yearly fee may be set by Congress for participation, not to exceed the median cost of similar private insurance
4. Gun buyback and amnesty programs for those prohibited by law from owning firearms


OK let 'er rip

[gopiscrap]

1. an absolute total ban on all guns, shotguns, rifles, ak's etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shilka-Gunluvr]

5. It's been tried

That's been tried before and the lesson has been learned. Next.

[oldsarge54]

125. What specifically has been tried.

I thought the proposal made sense. Please explain (and I mean this nicely) how it has been tried, if failed why, and the lesson learned, please.

[thomasprescottjr]

132. there are other issues that are affected

Despite the NRA, GOA, JPFO, NSSF, and all the other pro gun groups, Sales have soared, requests for CCW and safety and training have soared. The voters do not want to be messed with.

Gun control does not deal with crime it is about control and authority and playing god. Judgment of the innocent or inanimate object over the premeditated murderers that are out there.

This issue of gun control has killed more democratic efforts than anything else. leave it alone and find another way to deal with crime besides messing with law abiding americansl

[PavePusher]

16. You just love the sound of your own voice, don't you?

[aikoaiko]

83. You shouldn't mock the Anti-gun-nuts like that.

Their feelings get hurt easily.

[thomasprescottjr]

131. problem with gun control

The problem with gun control is that it doesnt address the problem. The majority of America does not favor gun control and costs Democratic seats. The problem is crime and punishment. Anti gunners want to punish the innocent and give excuses for criminals.

I do not support gun control.

[tortoise1956]

2. What I read sounds good...

It's late and I'm tired, I couldn't make it all the way through. I have minor quibbles with some parts. but on the whole it is a good start for an informed debate.

Now, if only we could have one of those on this group...

[safeinOhio]

3. Some good ideas in there.

A very good place to start. Thanks.

[Remmah2]

12. Funny, gun owners are always being accused of being unable to compromise.

Yet the end game of compromise and reasonable gun control always points to total eradication.

Hence, no give no take.

[gejohnston]

36. a good start of what?

dialog or regulation?
the first means working together to a workable system that won't piss both off too much.
The other implies a step toward prohibition.

[ileus]

4. The only reasonable answer is a total ban.

Some people won't accept guns kill people, but we all know deep down it's true.

If only that Italian guy or Northern girl were still here to keep us straight.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Just a thought...

You might want to add that sarcasm thing to your sig line.

[pscot]

26. The impossible is not exactly reasonable

[shadowrider]

51. I agree. I gave up my guns and bought 15 cases of vienna sausages

The caliber isn't as big as a regular can of beans, but I can reload in a hurry.

[jeepnstein]

6. Let me think about that one.

On the face of it I think it might be reasonable.
I have a problem with a government-issued ID for ammo purchases. And having ammo drop shipped to the police station is just a bad idea all the way around. Mail-order ammo isn't the problem.

Breaking firearms into two classes, registered and unregistered is a problem since it would make it easier for the prohibitionists to come back later and "revise" what Rights we may exercise. The prospect of a ban in the future would make this a hard sell. The registration fee smells like a poll tax to me.

Ten years is too long a period for renewal on a CCW. And what about states who are not requiring any permit? You might very well want to drop that provision altogether and concentrate on arms sales. Same goes with open carry.

Oh, and do you have any idea how many wealthy folks would blow a gasket if you repeal the NFA? The Republican Party would go insane over that one.

The problem is people using firearms to resolve business conflicts in the drug trade, and to a lesser extent mentally ill individuals buying firearms after passing a NICS check. The root of most of the violence we are seeing in our urban centers is the drug trade. We had the same kind of thing on a smaller scale during Prohibition. The illegal drug trade is driving the violence.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Who was it...

...that said:

"Don't matter if it's heroin, cocaine or hash,
ya got ta carry weapons 'cause ya always carry cash"?

[jeepnstein]

13. Great, now that song is stuck in my head.

Thank you so very much.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. If you wanna get down,

Down on the ground, Cocaine!

Sorry...

[sarisataka]

19. Ok...

now I have to go grab the guitar


THANKS

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Maybe a bit of piano for a change...

The eternal Thompson gunner,
still wandering through the night.
Now it's ten years later but he still keeps up the fight...
In Ireland, in Lebanon, in Palestine and Berkeley.
Patty Hearst heard the burst of Roland's Thompson gun and bought it.

This one mentions guns.

[sarisataka]

29. In my best Daffy Duck voice-

You're disssPicible

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. As me Irish mother would say, 'Aye and proud of it, I am.' n/t

[Simo 1939_1940]

49. As my German/Irish mother would say......

"Ya --- and your point is exactly what?"

[tortoise1956]

86. Shades of Zevon!

I still enjoy listening to that song. BTW, don't forget "Excitable Boy" - another funny song. Warren was a little twisted - like a pretzel!

As far as the post, there are a lot of things in there that make sense to me. Besides, even Scalia has come out and said that restrictions could very well be constitutional from a strict constructionist point of view. I'm still looking into exactly what he was referring to, but when one of the most conservative justices says that, you gotta wonder...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. If "Excitable Boy" is to your taste...

...let me recommend "I Used to Love Her" from G'n'R.

The OP makes a great deal of sense to me. I'm sure some political "adjustments" would be needed to the dollars referenced. I can't see making insurance mandatory for the average owner but perhaps insurance should figure in somewhere or at least be available.

(Speaking of insurance, on a tangent, healthcare insurance companies should be required to be non-profit.)

Let me also point out that the dissent of the four justices in Heller, written by Stevens, is predicated on the concept that: 1- no clause within the Constitution or BoR can be regarded as without without meaning or importance and 2- the meaning of the prefatory clause in the 2A qualifies the purpose of the RKBA is to protect the ability of the people to form a militia.

I accept that the purpose of the 2A is principally to protect the ability of the people to form a militia and, if needed, resist tyranny. However, I believe that the purpose of the RKBA, is multifaceted and that only one facet is addressed by the prefatory clause within the 2A.

Any thoughts?

[Trunk Monkey]

65. You take sally, I'll take sue there ain't no difference between the 2 cocaine

runnin all around my brain

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. I have a mansion forget the price.

Ain't never been there they tell me it's nice.
I live in hotels tear out the walls;
I have accountants pay for it all.

[Trunk Monkey]

68. I've seen the needle and the damage done

A little part of it in everyone
But every junkie's
like a settin' sun.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. Whiskey bottles and brand new cars,

Oak tree, you're in my way.
There's too much coke and too much smoke,
Look what's going on inside you.

Ooh, that smell
Can't you smell that smell?
Ooh, that smell
The smell of death surrounds you, yeah.

{put this thread to bed}

[sarisataka]

72. Lalala not listening

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. Turn that up.

That's a good one!

[Trunk Monkey]

78. I was gonna clean my room until I got high

I was gonna get up and find the broom but then I got high
my room is still messed up and I know why (why man?) yea heyy,
- cause I got high [repeat 3X]

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. Any set of new laws should have a sunset provision somewhere...

after-all, despite the occasional whack job, we must remember that violent crime rates are at lows and trending downward. If you change the laws and ruin the trends, there should be fall-back plan. Personally, i'm inclined to leave laws just the way they are due to the crime trends - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[alabama_for_obama]

96. our gun laws are not particularly responsible for the ever decreasing levels of violence

With the possible exception of concealed carry liberalization, but I have my doubts as to whether that effects the stats one way or the other anyway. we have other issues that cause violence, like the drug war that are much more likely at fault for our violence problems in this country.

[bongbong]

102. Logic?

> Personally, i'm inclined to leave laws just the way they are due to the crime trends - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Logic fail. Correlation is not causation. Any conclusion that current gun laws contribute - or don't contribute - to changes in crime rates is impossible. This is assuming you know a bit about logic & statistics.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

103. I agree. I still wouldn't assume that gun laws have *no* effect on current trends.

They certainly have an effect, one way or the other. We just haven't been able to effectly determine which way, statistically. In light of not knowing exactly how our gun laws are influencing crime trends, and given that the crime trends are moving in a favorable direction, it may be prudent to leave things alone.

Which bring me back to my post, in not so many words... If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.

[bongbong]

104. Logic Pt 2

> and given that the crime trends are moving in a favorable direction, it may be prudent to leave things alone.

Nope, not logical. Since, as you admit, more guns might be increasing crime, there is no logical way to make the statement above.

> If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.

As you admitted, it might actually BE broken - but the volume of NRA Talking Points is hiding that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

105. Um... but crime trends ARE moving in a favorable direction. Nearing 1950's lows.

We do KNOW that the overall crime trends have been improving. They are at decades ows - that is not a statement... it's a DOJ Fact. I agree, there is no logical way to make the statement more guns might be increasing crime OR more guns might be decreasing crime. Hypotheticals support both scenarios and statistics support neither.

Simple question: If we don't know what a change will do... why make/risk a change?
Followup Quaestion: If we decide to make a change because we determine there is improvement to be made... then which direction do we make the change?

[bongbong]

107. Clues

> If we don't know what a change will do... why make/risk a change?

Oh, I don't know, maybe if you follow the track of blood to the various massacre sites in America you'll get a clue. Or you could follow the track of almost no gun violence in countries with tighter gun control. Just a clue.



> If we decide to make a change because we determine there is improvement to be made... then which direction do we make the change?

Since the civilized world (for the purposes of this question, I'm temporarily not including America) pretty much all have much tighter gun control, that may be another clue.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

108. Blood running the streets, conflating "civilized" with "gun control"... there's our beloved bongbong

I've always been curious about how long you could sustain a somewhat-logical somewhat-substantive civil dialouge...
Now I know the answer is "3 posts". Good to know

[bongbong]

112. Numbers

I've always been curious about how long gun-relgionists could sustain a somewhat-logical somewhat-substantive civil without getting personal....

Now I know the answer is either 0, 1, or 2. Good to know

[alabama_for_obama]

109. who cares about gun violence?

not me. Worry about violence in general, in all of its forms. Those spree killers would do it with simple to make firebombs if they didn't have guns. don't think banning guns is somehow going to end america's violent nature. Why take away the most effective self defense tool that many people have? you know we can't possibly fill that void with police in every jurisdiction. Hell, we can't even get police to respond in many urban jurisdictions, unless young people are protesting banking malfeasance.

[bongbong]

111. Talking Points

> Those spree killers would do it with simple to make firebombs if they didn't have guns.

NRA Talking Point #14. Good job repeating it.

> don't think banning guns is somehow going to end america's violent nature

NRA Talking Point #17. Good job repeating it.

> you know we can't possibly fill that void with police in every jurisdiction.

NRA Talking Point #21. Good job repeating it.

[alabama_for_obama]

120. Guess who is not a member of the NRA?

This guy. Me.

I don't get talking points from them, these are logical responses or the most likely consequences of these actions.

I'm starting to think I ought to join the NRA, since they seem to be the only ones making much sense regarding gun politics, and they are one of the few groups that keeps the government from passing feel good laws that won't reduce violent crime, but will reduce a law abiding citizen's ability to protect themselves and others from it.

[rDigital]

122. : ) do it.

The NRA is non-partisan. A lot of members are definitely from the other side of the aisle, but the proof is in the pudding. All that matters to the NRA, with politicians, is their stance on firearms rights. Plenty of Democratic Party members get NRA backing.

They supported my favorite Dem Governor, Ted Strickland. He had an NRA 'A' rating.

[alabama_for_obama]

123. They claim not to be partisan…

But if they support mittens "AWB" Romney in the presidential election, despite that Obama has a better record on 2a rights, I'm going to be hard pressed to believe it.

There is a decided right wing slant to everything I see coming out of their annual meeting.

I wish they were truly nonpartisan and that they would send dickwad cowards like Ted nugent packing, but they don't appear to be doing this.

Still I'm considering joining twice, once for myself, and once in the name of a pious and condescending minister acquaintance of mine.

My hope is that if enough progressive dems join, the NRA will actually start sticking to their mission and stop dabbling in creepy right wing identity politics.

[rDigital]

124. You're right about

the RW slant, but they're the only true player in the Pro2A arena and still endorse many Dems.

More Dems in the ranks means a step towards a more objective organization that is truly single issue.

[alabama_for_obama]

121. Did you ever imagine...

It might be possible that if a bunch of people are all giving similar answers, it may be because they have thought things through and come to the logical conclusion?

You would not spout this nonsense about talking points if we were in agreement on this issue, you would note how logical and smart I was for coming to the same conclusions as you.

If someone states that making abortions illegal will only drive women to get illegal and possibly dangerous amatuer abortion service, is this somehow a pro-choice talking point? No, it's reality. Same thing with most of the positions on gun rights that you find so abhorrent.

[sarisataka]

115. Would you then agree

that if, say the proposed magazine restriction, passes and crime increases over the next few years, that GC does not lower crime and may increase it?
And that being the case, then restrictions on guns should be loosened?

[slackmaster]

8. TL, DR

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2012, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Looks like a non-starter to me.

Bring back the Bradley Bill.

[4th law of robotics]

9. Just a little more

always seems to be the answer (to the question posed in your title).

/this will be the last one, we promise!

[michreject]

10. What about currently owned firearms and ammo?

You never covered the reloading aspect either.

[sarisataka]

20. I had not considered reloading

but it would have to be accounted for since the materials can be used for, shall we say, more than one purpose.

To avoid one of the gaping holes in the AWB it would likely have to require registration of existing guns which fall into the required categories.

[krispos42]

15. Interesting food for thought

I have a problem with 3D

D. Pistols capable of generating muzzle energy greater than 200ft/lbs

200 ft/lbs is about a .38 Special or .380 ACP... hardly excessive in terms of energy.

Maybe you meant 500 ft/lbs? That's about what a really hot .357 Magnum load will do.




The problem with defining muzzle energy is that it varies, depending on barrel length, bullet weight, bullet composition, and gunpowder used.

.357 ammo from a revolver can range from maybe 375 to 500+ foot-pounds, for example

[sarisataka]

17. Yes that was a typo

I meant 2000 ft/lbs to allow for large bore hunting revolvers such as the .454 Casull

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. Let's not forget...

...the S&W #29, .475 Wildey and .50 Desert Eagle.
Are they < 2000 ft/lbs?

[Cary]

18. I do like the idea of using fees to fund programs

I am not so wild about the idea of liability insurance since that insulates people from consequences of their negligent and intentional actions. On the other hand it does create a pot of money for victims to collect from.

I would like to see some of that money go to fund research. The law and the programs should be studied and monitored to see what works and what doesn't work.

That in and of itself might solve one problem: glassy eyed gun nut cultists going around telling everyone that they can't think about this issue because only they know what they're talking about.

Oh, and we can buy a lot of socks and duct tape to shut the glassy eyed gun nuts the fuck up.

[gejohnston]

25. glassy eyed gun nut cultists going around telling everyone that they can't think about this issue

because only they know what they're talking about

Other than being a stupid and bigoted comment that would get hidden if it were any other "other", you can think about the issue all you want. You can say all you want, no matter how absurd or uninformed. That said, be prepared to be corrected.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. re: "You can say all you want, no matter how absurd or uninformed."

Well said, but there's no accounting for taste.

[aikoaiko]

84. And also shut up the anti-gun-freaks who pose as neutral

Even though they talk of bans when rare but tragic events occur.

We should shut them the fuck up too don't you think?

[ManiacJoe]

23. Excellent start to a great conversation!

A question: What is the purpose of the two gun groups in (1) and (2)? Why not merge them into one group?

A suggestion: (1a) should probably just be "revolvers" since "revolvers with a capacity of over 6 rounds" is missing from all the lists, and such a distinction lacks any obvious logic.

[sarisataka]

39. Oops, oversight

I believe there are a few models of revolvers that are larger than .22 and hold more than 6 rounds. It is not a huge issue, but someone might figure out how to make a 15 shot revolver someday. (God only knows why you would want that)

[gejohnston]

43. for the same reason someone would want a .45-70 revolver? Or a

a .600 Nitro Express revolver?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeifer_Zeliska_.600_Nitro_Express_revolver
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=278325

[sarisataka]

46. Not me

I have grown fond of my wrists.
Some things should be mounted on a pintle

[tortoise1956]

87. Are you shitting me?

That round will take down a Cape buffalo! Who in the name of God is a big enough masochist to actually shoot the damn thing? The freakin' Hulk?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. That's an interesting...

...but rather irrelevant thought.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Please...

...enlighten us on that which the Founders were mistaken.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. An opinion only

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2012, 07:18 PM - Edit history (1)

In his dissent in the Heller decision, Justice Stevens (and the other three dissenters in agreement) names the militia clause as meaningful but does not hold membership in an organized militia as a requirement for firearm ownership. The 'individual right' interpretation was unanimous.


epilog: This thread appears to have died of acute facts and complications of logic. :snicker:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. Also...

...an irrelevant suggestion.

But let me ask... Have you ever seen the Black Knight scene with Monty Python?

[Missycim]

82. They probably didn't forsee

The internet or other means of communication, so you are saying the first amendment doesn't apply to them?

[aikoaiko]

85. Thank you for posting. You make the NRAs gun law positions look sane

I'm glad people like you and the other gun banners have come out of their hideyholes.

[Marengo]

90. It's "obvious" only to those who claim to commune with the dead

Would that be you by chance?

[Marengo]

94. But not with the founders? Why not?

[Marengo]

118. Misinterpreting in what way?

[sarisataka]

34. You do realize the 2 A

Does not say the militia must be Federal or State trained.
If you wish to give the militia clause the primary weigh, then the Michigan militia and other RW groups would be in full compliance with the Amendment.
They are citizens
They are militia members
By training themselves, they are well regulated

Think about it...

[sarisataka]

42. I would see the FF view differently

the militias of the Revolution were not State sponsored but citizen formed and trained.
They did not worry about racism because it was codified in the Constitution. The Civil War was about 80 years in the future.

If they fully intended the States to control the militia they would have phrased it something like:
A well regulated militia of the State, being necessary for freedom and security,...

I have no doubt that the term state did not refer to the USA as a whole, but to the individual States.
To read State in the 2A as the USA would imply the amendment is giving the USA permission to have an army that can bear arms.

[gejohnston]

45. that was

years after the war ended. The war ended in 1783.Then, we had this thing called the Articles of Confederation before we had the Constitution. The 2A was ratified in 1791.

[Jenoch]

50. Actually,

when the colonial militias were fighting the British, the British WERE the government. The colonists were fighting against their government, so it seems your theory does not add up.

[Jenoch]

119. The militias were the

people who were fighting against the state. They were fighting against their government. The British were in control and the colonialists were fighting them. I'm surprised you seem to be unaware that the citizens took up arms to fight against their own government. It's in all the history books. The 2nd Amendment is about the government not taking away the citizens' right to keep and bear arms because to do so would to limit their rights to take on an oppressive government. Which is exactly what happened in the Revolutionary War.

[sarisataka]

52. The sides were reversed

We opposed laws being passed without consent or input. When all political avenues filed, the colonies (subjects of the Crown) resorted to armed opposition. The colonies were the aggressors against the lawful government, not protecting anything but their economic and political interests as British subjects.
It took about two years before the decision was made to declare independence and form our own state.

(a well trained force whose job it is to protect the free state, i.e., the colonies)

That would have been what we called the redcoats or British regulars. As was pointed out in a GD thread P. Revere's call was "The regulars are coming". It would have made no sense to call "the British are coming" as the colonies were British

[sarisataka]

57. I'll try again

The state was Britain. The rebels were the American colonies of Britain. The militias were self organized subjects of Britain. The were not sponsored, formed or controlled by the British government.
The war was not, initially, to form a separate state but for political autonomy or equality, whichever the King would grant. I believe the colonists wanted autonomy and so would have become a self-governing body in the commonwealth. The King would remain the head of state and the colonists would have their own head of government(s).
On July 2, 1776 the Continental Congress voted in favor of the Declaration of Independence. At that point the militias began defending a new self declared free state.

[NewMoonTherian]

76. You are writing something that is not consistent with the law.

Nor was it ever intended to be the law.

The founders did not mistakenly reverse their language. They wrote a law that you don't agree with.

If you ever want the second amendment of the United States constitution to be interpreted as you are interpreting it, you're going to have to change the second amendment.

[NewMoonTherian]

93. So get the second amendment changed.

You can't just pretend that it says something different than it does, and expect people to agree with you. If you can get enough people together who believe that banning guns is where the nation needs to go, you can get the amendment repealed.

For myself, I think the second amendment is just and right, and I want the federal government to stop violating the law as written.

[NewMoonTherian]

101. You don't know anything about me.

You are calling me a gun nut based on the fact that I believe in the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment(I actually believe the interpretation is wrong and most gun laws passed from 1934 onward are unconstitutional). What makes you think I even own a gun?

[NewMoonTherian]

110. I believe in lots of rights I don't exercise.

Believing in and fighting to preserve human rights doesn't mean I exercise all of those rights. You won't catch me in Outdoor Life discussing the best round for elk hunting or responding to a "What's your carry gun?" thread. You have no legitimate reason to label me a "gun nut". Even if I were a gun nut, that doesn't invalidate any of my arguments. You're attacking me personally, rather than addressing what I'm saying. It makes your position seem weak, and your position was very weak to begin with.

[NewMoonTherian]

116. No, it isn't.

It's like hating racists, but still defending their right to say what they want.

It's like abhorring the practice of abortion, but fighting to keep abortion legal.

It's like fighting to end the war on drugs, yet not being a drug user.

It's like being a heterosexual who stands up for gay marriage rights.

I am a part of the solution, and the problem is intrusive, ineffective restrictions on individual rights.

[oldsarge54]

126. 1775: New York Colony Rules for Regulating the Militia

Being this document is dated from the era of when the 2nd Amendment was formulated, it is worth tracking down. Let me know, I have both a redacted and a complete version of it. Remember, the United States did not want or have a standing army, and the militia then was effectively the national guard, to be activated in the event of invasion, insurrection, or indian attack.

[shadowrider]

63. My children can defend themselves thank you. They all carry and they're all female n/t

[bluemntceltic]

117. Yes they should

Similarly to that European enclave, Switzerland. If everyone of those adults in that theater had been armed then perhaps the Perp would have had his spree ended very quickly. BTW, Israel also arms their populous, it's one of the reasons for homicidal bombers, they found that their former method of attacks were being stopped quickly. We, on the other hand, have individuals who insist on keeping us all as sitting ducks or docile sheep. The term "sheeples" was coined for such as these.

[dmallind]

48. No real problems except intent

I would imagine the intent is to reduce criminal gun use, with murders being the most serious obviously. The humble .38 special revolver is the gun most used in murders, followed by .22s. Small revolvers are cheaper and more concealable than almost all semi-autos, expensive pocket pistol exotica notwithstanding in the latter case, and for professional criminals have the advantage of carrying casings away without the need to pick them up. Why then would you seek to register and limit the less frequently lethal semi-autos more rigorously? Same or lesser would make sense. Muzzle energy is also an emotional criterion not a criminological one. How many people are shot with .460s? Hell how many people can shoot one worth a crap? Again it's the cheap bricks you can buy at Walmart for $10 that get used in crimes, not $2 a round artillery.

Overall no real issue with registration myself, or mandatory training. I could also go for the fees and insurance. I'd add a couple of things perhaps;

1) training should be on the gun you want to carry. Getting trained on a steel .22 revolver then carrying an Airlite .357 Magnum is a recipe for really wild follow up shots (and/or a possible wrist injury at least) if you ever have to use it. I learned this from young motorcyclists I trained, who took the test on 50cc mopeds then bought 180mph 1000cc+ crotch rockets and wondered why they handled differently - sometimes briefly.

2) safety inspections should be mandatory for carry weapons. We need to weed out the silly Derringers and open trigger crap that are a danger to owner and others even with responsible use. No gun should just drop onto a level surface and fire as the Walmart incident this week would have us believe. If it did it was either stored irresponsibly or defective.

[Atypical Liberal]

55. You cannot define reasonable restrictions without agreeing on the purpose of the second amendment

You cannot define "reasonable restrictions" without first agreeing on the purpose of the second amendment.

The second amendment is intended to keep military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use in the hands of civilians, so that they can serve as military troops in emergencies against enemies both internal and external.

Any restriction which compromises this capability, such as giving the government a list of firearm owners, is a non-starter.

Your proposals fail primarily because they destroy anonymous firearm ownership.

Also, the fees are unreasonable and unnecessary.

I have a better idea:

Require a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) license for all firearm owners.
FOIDs will automatically be given to everyone who applies for a drivers' license or state-issued ID, assuming you pass an instant background check, unless you choose to opt out.
A record of all private firearm sales must be kept by the seller for 5 years, and must include the FOID information of the buyer. Guns used in crimes traced back to sellers without legitimate proof of sale information face steep penalties.

Because all FOID holders will already have undergone a background check, the need for conducting background checks at the point of receipt is negated. As a result, anyone with a valid FOID can buy firearms through mail order.

[sarisataka]

58. Would not the FOID

and records be a 5 year registration?

The idea of registration is a two edged sword. On the positive side, in the event of a military presence needed within the US, it would be a list of those available for duty and the equipment they would have.
On the negative side, were the opposition the Government itself, be it Federal, State or local, it would be a target list. Also as many on the pro-rights side fear, from the words of pro-control leaders, registration is "only the first step"

[Atypical Liberal]

62. A very difficult to trace registration.

Would not the FOID and records be a 5 year registration?

Yes, but without a government-held, or worse, electronic database of records, it becomes very hard and requires lots of manual police work to trace firearms. It won't be worth the effort except for firearms recovered at crime scenes. Such guns, from their serial numbers, can be traced from their original point of sale to all legitimate subsequent owners by physically visiting each subsequent buyer of the firearm, demanding the sale records, and then moving to the next seller until the last legitimate buyer is located.

But because the records are held as paper in the hands of countless millions of private owners, the government has no database of who owns the arms.

The idea of registration is a two edged sword. On the positive side, in the event of a military presence needed within the US, it would be a list of those available for duty and the equipment they would have.
On the negative side, were the opposition the Government itself, be it Federal, State or local, it would be a target list. Also as many on the pro-rights side fear, from the words of pro-control leaders, registration is "only the first step"

The purpose of the second amendment is to decentralize military power to counter federal military power. If you give the federal government a list of all people able to counter its power, you seriously undermine the ability of the people to do that.

[Atypical Liberal]

56. And after we jump through all these hoops, another mass murderer will legally buy his guns.

Just like Holmes legally bought his firearms, we will jump through all these hoops and regulations only to discover that every once and a while someone with no criminal or mental history goes crazy and will kill people with guns anyway. And then we'll be off to the races on a new set of restrictions.

No thanks.

[sarisataka]

59. That is unfortunately true

And the examples of reinstating the expired laws, which all pretty much agree would not have stopped this tragedy, is a major sticking point on discussions.
Admittedly the refusal of the gun side to budge on any registration is an opposite sticking point.

I do fear this is an insoluble problem at this juncture. In all are arguments, pro-either side we must resolve that none of us are single issue voters and though we may disagree vehemently on this issue, we have many more issues in common.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. You have overly complicated things but the concepts are certainly worth discussing

You put the guns into three categories:
- Simple/Acceptable
- Evil looking
- Class Three
My take is the definition details need some work. For example, all weapons with a fixed magazine should be in your first group, especially shotguns and revolvers. Instead of .22 use the term rimfire. It will get you where you want to go.

Ammo:
Seriously missed the mark in terms of volume sales. Requirement should be adult only and nothing special for online sales. Bringing in the cops is silly and that is not what they do. Document the gun/owners as you like but ammo is not the issue in any way. Again, rimfire should be exempted

Magazines: I have mixed feeling about limits...using the manufacturers stand mag seems to be a good place to start. Existing magazines of all sizes should simply be grandfathered. I do not see the value in forced trade ins or exchanges. If you are authorizing general ownership of Class Three weapons, belt fed will need to be allowed.

Training: Very mixed feelings since it is a right, yet as a trainer, I believe it is critical to safe ownership and use.

Fees: Again, we are dealing with a constitutional right, but your graduated ownership/activities and cost seem to be well paired. Your ammo tax rate is too high. Ammo is already taxed, divert funds from that. Exempt rimfire.

I like the legal protections, but again, it would need some detail work.

The real problem is the disparity in state laws. If this was national policy, I could support it (fix the details please). Instead of doing financial penalties, use the Commerce Clause to force state/local compliance.

[badtoworse]

61. A euphemism for the next increment of civil rights to be taken away - nt

[Trunk Monkey]

66. I don't know what reasonable gun control is but i know it ain't that NT

[Clames]

69. Where would this one fall?

It's a lever-action Marlin 1894.






But has pee-pee pants scary tactical stuff on it..

[ManiacJoe]

70. Section 1b.

[Trunk Monkey]

79. Damn you bubba'd that gun man NT

[Clames]

80. If it was mine...

...it wouldn't have a railed forend. Keep the rail on top, a good scout rifle optic, and in .45-70 would be nice.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

73. in theory it is a slippery slope. In practice, I think we have achieved a delicate balance. If the

current laws are enforced as intended and, if we can refocus our efforts on education and mental health thus ensuring we are raising positive contributing members of society.

Children should be a priority not an afterthought.

[NewMoonTherian]

75. Just a few nitpicks.

I have a problem with any legislation permanently ties a specific gun to a specific name. It has the potential to curb crime, but there's also too much potential for abuse of that registration system.

Also, I think a penny per round is too steep a fee for ammunition.

One more. I don't think bump fire conversions belong in the same category as fully automatic guns. If it does have to be that way, I'd like to see the legislation spelled out very plainly to state exactly what is a bump fire converted rifle. Rubber bands and shoestrings do not a machine gun make, as the old saying goes.

What I like:

The liability clause for businesses that opt out of allowing carry.

Fees on local governments for restricting gun rights.

New civilian-market machine guns (I assume).


Those are the major things I took away from your post. Good stuff. I can see you put a lot of thought into it. I think you may have conceded a little too much, but I would think that no matter what, as per my sig line.

[samsingh]

77. i don't understand the need for anything that is 'instant'. the requirements should be to be

thorough. that is if we want to keep maniacs from buying them and going on a killing spree.

[NewMoonTherian]

95. The instant check is a necessary compromise.

It's either an instant check, or no check.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

81. Reasonable gun control is... using two hands.

nt

[shadowrider]

89. Reasonable gun control is using two hands AND putting 6 out of 10 in the bullseye

at 10 yards.

[oldsarge54]

127. How good is your Grammar?

The 2nd Amendment is a single sentence of 27 words. "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."

The subject of that sentence IS "a well regulated militia." This could be inferred that the right to bear arms is subject to the necessity of belonging to a well regulated militia. I would not go that far, but, Justice Scallia, no liberal, is of the opinion that the letter of the law in the amendment means that the Federal government has the right to regulate said arms. Personally, I have a replica 1854 Springfield, and although my friends at the range tease me about filing an EPA statement before each round, they hand around. Personally, I don't see the need for anything more than a Springfield 03 and a revolver.

[shadowrider]

129. Did you reply to the wrong post?

[oldsarge54]

130. Maybe

What I wanted to know is where is gun control not in the 2nd Amendment. I was offended with Perry's two hands comment, and while not getting personal, as I am a firearm owner myself, why all the argument?

[alabama_for_obama]

98. too many rules. way too many rules.

too many of these rules are totally arbitrary. and most of them wouldn't reduce crime. sooo, let's not (and not even say we did). I'd rather have the status quo than this miserable mess of rules you propose.

KEEP IT SIMPLE: Background check required for ALL purchases, NICS records required to be updated immediately if a person is indicted of or convicted of violent felony or otherwise ruled mentally incompetent. if no conviction on violent felony and indictment is dropped, NICS system also notified immediately so that people won't have their rights restricted without just cause. Domestic violence indictments/convictions the same, even if not felony in a particular jurisdiction.

No wasting time keeping AMMO records. NO wasting time keeping federal records of who owns what guns. Can anyone point to a single case where a gun registry has solved a crime or been the evidence that sealed the deal for a conviction? No magazine limits, No barrel length limits for shotguns or rifles or pistols. No restrictions on imports of foreign weapons, unless said gun is a serious safety hazard (i.e. chambered for a particular caliber but not strong enough to safely fire it. No restrictions for owning suppressors, in fact they should be made mandatory in some areas to keep from bothering the neighbors.

Adults who leave firearms accessible to minors go to jail on a felony charge for minimum 5 years, longer if the child is injured or injures someone else with said guns.

Gun owners must keep all guns either on their person or stored in a locked safe upon leaving their place of residence or place of business. reducing theft reduces the chance that prohibited persons will have access to guns.

I'm torn on full auto anything, but lean towards no restrictions on this, as most people cannot afford to dump that much on ammo anyway. at the same time it is on the line regarding controlled firing of the weapon which seems to be a good litmus test of what should be allowed in civilian hands and what should not.

concealed carry: shall issue, no restrictions by state on where one may carry, perhaps barring government office buildings and airports with a security checkpoint. Lockers to temporarily store guns shall be made available at the checkpoints of these controlled environments so that people with carry permits can check their guns. Mandatory safety training and legal training of all concealed carry holders, to be renewed every year.

you are responsible for use of your weapon, if you have a shotgun for defensive purposes and injure a bystander while legitimately defending yourself, you should be convicted of negligence/manslaughter depending on how badly they are injured/killed. Increased penalties for using a weapon of any type while committing a violent crime.

states and municipalities shall make no law restricting possession of particular types of guns, etc. etc. exception being as to where a firearm may legally be discharged except in cases of self defense, or defending another from violent crime. No municipality may restrict location of indoor firing ranges that are insulated to keep noise from disturbing neighbors.

more rules than this just cause complications, but don't actually do anything to make people safer or reduce crime, so no more rules than this! KEEP IT SIMPLE.

[ErikO]

113. Nope.

All I would like to see is the BATFE making the e4733 available as a resource for private sales so that the seller or the buyer can verify that the transaction is legal under current law.

Current federal law states that as long as the seller is not aware of any reasons why the buyer is not able to complete the purchase of a firearm it's kosher. I have no issue with that. I would like additional protection of the seller and the buyer to have the chance to verify that the transaction is legal. No permanent record of the transaction, unless the seller offers a bill of sale.

Gun restrictions are not saving lives. Look at the major metro centers and see how many guns used in crimes are legal. I'd say the number approaces zero. I'm also leaving off suicides as those are a mental health issue and have no business being listed there.

[oldsarge54]

128. Observation

A frequently heard argument against gun control is that if gun were outlawed (which is not my position) then only outlaws would have guns. The point is EVERY illegal gun started out as a legal weapon. That shows a lack of gun control on the part of the owners.