If guns were as regulated as... (Page 2)

I've never grabbed a gun in my life, but I have made the comparison of licensure of guns, gun ownership, and gun use to that of automobiles and drivers. In my case, however, the suggestion was not that the licensure happen in an exact fashion, but in a similar fashion; it's more to the spirit of the law rather than the letter. I favor some controls and safeguards at the state level at least, but preferably the Federal level, around who can buy a gun, who can operate a gun, and in what condition the gun must be in order to be legally operated.  While some of those provisions exist in some states, they do not exist similarly in all sates and are not enforced in the same manner in which regulations regarding drivers and their automobiles are.

So you're in favor of requiring someone to have insurance before they can exercise a Constitutional Right?

Hmmmm....I can make an argument that ideas and the disemination of those ideas are far more dangerous than guns.  Would you likewise require someone to have liability insurance before they exercise their free speech rights?  That way if someone acts upon their ideas and injurs someone based upon the ideas that are espoused there is insurance to protect the injured?

or wait I know how about this one.  You have to post a bond equal to the maximum fine for the crime charged before you can exercise your Constitutional right to remain silent.  If you don't then you have to be compelled to give information against yourself.  But, if you post the monetary bond you can then remain silent.  If you're found not guilty you get the bond back, but if you're convicted you forfeit the bond to the government.

or wait, wait I've got another one.  How about Due Process.  Before you are entitled to due process you have to post a monetary bond equal to the anticipated cost of the type of hearing or process you are afforded.  That way it covers the expenses of you exercising your due process rights if you are not the prevailing party.

Hmmm any more? 

Instead of banning hand loading can we just legalize home refinement of gasoline?

Almost every State already has laws that make it a crime to leave a firearm unsecured so that a child has access to it.

So, I'm not sure why you're concerned with this.

In fact most states also have laws that make it a crime to knowingly sell a firearm to a minor or the mentally ill.

I keep hearing pro-gun control proponents continually making statements like this.  We need laws that create liability for letting minors get a hold of guns, or let the mentally ill get guns, or whatever.

The fact(again I don't mean to cloud the issue with teh actual facts)is that most states already have these laws.  It's disengenious and outright fear mongering to assert otherwise.  The pro-gun control lobby through ommission or downright lies leaves the unknowing with the impression that such laws are absent and the only way to have these laws is to federally increase gun control laws.

Yup, that's what I'm saying, that the pro-gun control lobby is down right lying in an attempt to argue that the only solution is increased federal gun control legislation.

The notion that creating new catagories of federal crimes based upon these new notions of gun control laws is a total joke.  The feds take but a small fraction of crimes for which they have federal criminal jurisdiction as it is.  Almost any crime committed with a firearm there is federal criminal jurisdiction, but the feds only take a fraction of a percent of these crimes, and hardly any where there is also state criminal jurisdiction.  They refuse to take jurisdiction because of cost.

So the notion that the Feds are going to create new federal crimes, or stricter more stringent federal penalities for gun crimes is a total joke. 

Once again.  Same pet peeve of mine in this whole issue.  And used by both sides.

Guns are guns and NOT sudafed or cars.

They all are unique to themselves and need their unique versions of control/rules/laws.  Guns can't be controled like cars or sudafed because they are not cars or sudafed.

You're absolutely correct.  And the reason they can't be controled the same is because  right to bear firearms is a specifically enumerated  constitutional right, while cars and sudafed aren't.  Thus it is incumbent upon those calling for any types of restrictions on gun ownership to justify their position in conformity with the constitution, not the other way around.

Gun  owners don't have to support their position based on what is needed for hunting or recreation or self defense.  We have a right, a natural right, seperate from the Constitution, but yet specifically enumerated in the Constitution, to keep and bear arms.  This right does not flow from the the government, we do not posses it because the government allows us to posses this right.  We have this right because it exists and we exist.  THis right is as protected as any of the other rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, or the rights encompossed in the "pnumbra of rights" not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights as arguably protected by the 9th and 14th Amendments.

My pet peave is how the argument has been turned on its head and gun owners are being forced, or goaded into defending their ability to own firearms, rather than the side calling for restrictions having to justify their curtailment of a Constitutionally held right.

If my post sounded like fear mongering, it wasn't meant to be.  It was to draw attention to the fact that I *do not* like the Democrats in Congress making a huge stink out of assault weapons.  It is wasted effort and those weapons are the cause of a very small percentage of firearm fatalities.

My issue is neither the states nor the Feds have a means to track private sales and enforce background checks on secondhand buyers, due to the law DanielG mentioned.  Without that enforcement, the existing background checks / Brady law / anything else, are just hand waving.

The law wouldn't need to care about the seller *knowingly* dealing with a bad person, if the background checks were automatically done and out of the seller's hands.

If you prefer that to be handled by the states rather than the feds, so be it.  But it isn't getting done at all right now.  It seems that gun advocates want zero accountability at any level of the system.  Not individuals, not manufacturers, and certainly not government licensing.

And yet, despite that view, most of you seem ok with the high level of regulation on fully automatic weapons.  Why is that?

And while we are at it... abortion needs more restrictions and people should have to justify why they need it... see how that one goes over.... I mean it's cool if we throw all guns in the sea... but lay one darn finger on my unconditional right to an abortion on demand... and we are going to start occupying things.

So, you obviously think most criminals purchase their guns legally, right? 

Do you think if a law is passed that private sellers/purchasers need to get background checks that criminals will submit to those checks? 

Do you want to seriously lower the crime rate in this country?  Dump all of the non-violent drug offenders out of prison and quit putting them there.  Fill those spaces with those among us who use guns to commit crimes.....the number isn't as large as you think it is.  THAT'S the kind of legislature that will yield results....the rest of this stuff is just dumb. 

Take guns from people who don't commit crimes why? 

There are a lot of people that are not OK with not being able to have full automatic... If "I" had full auto... it would not do any more harm than any of my others. But for me personally... I do not care about full auto, because I could not afford to shoot it. Blow through thousands of rounds why?

What the problem with gun control laws and the reluctance of pro gun folks is... and I am starting to agree more and more.... is that these are nothing more than knee jerk reaction that do not actually have much effectiveness. We keep agreeing, and it never ends... then they want more, then they more... and then more. For some reason 20,000 gun laws on the books in this nation are not enough... so why exactly should I agree to more.... when will it ever be enough?

Personally... I am for universal checks. I'm OK with private sales being banned at gun shows, or requiring checks... if that was just it. Set up who is prohibited, then ensure they do not get them through legal channels... but no, it's not enough... because we already know what the end game is... a single shot .22 that must be stored dissembled and you have to ask permission to take it to the range. I'm being silly... we all know they would confiscate every one if they could.

No I don't think criminals will submit to those checks.  But this would establish a chain of custody of each weapon that is legally sold on the market.  You as a law enforcement guy will know all about that.  Can a criminal still steal one?  Sure.  But a homeowner who has his weapon stolen is going to report it to police.  The same guy who sells it to Joe Random doesn't care where it ends up.

As for the bolded part, my state (WA) just made a step in that direction

For what it's worth, I grew up around a bunch of veterans, I learned proper respect for and handling of weapons at an early age, and I don't have a problem with gun ownership.  I was in the military myself.  So to say "they" in this context is stereotyping a bit.

I don't have a great fear of this slippery slope effect and I think we can do more to achieve firearm accountability and safety without banning them entirely.

You know what, the full auto example was maybe a bad one since it affects almost no one.

What about concealed carry permits?  I'd wager that many folks on this board have one or know someone who does.  They provide info on individuals just as easily as registering the guns themselves.  So if there was some huge conspiracy to take all your guns away (omg!) then they already have a good list.  Not to mention a few more large databases courtesy of the BATF.

Yes there are some people who would like a large scale ban or a ban on manufacturing.

There are also a lot of people out there like myself who see avenues for sensible regulation w/o a ban.

You flippently say: "so if there was some huge conspiracy to take all your guns away (omg!)..."  You dismiss this idea as some wacky conspiracy nutjob theory.  But, lets look at the facts...shall we:

First the famous Heller case delt with a DC law that as the U.S. Supreme Court noted made it practically illegal to posses a handgun in your own home.

Second: proposed legislation in Minn that any weapon defined as an "assualt weapon" currently legally owned would have to be turned over to the state authorities by September 1st in order for that firearm to be destroyed. Violation of the act, i.e. not turning over your previously legal firearm constitutes a felony

Third, proposed legislation in MO which would require any currently legally owned assualt weapon to be turned over to the state government for destruction within 90 days from passage of the bill. Failure to comply is a felony.

Fourth: a California proposal that in order to purchase any firearm you must at the same time purchase a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy.  That's for each firearm.  No $1,000,000 insurance policy, you can't purchase the firearm.

The Feinstein "assualt weapons" ban, also includes banning certain semi automatic handguns and semi-automatic shotguns.

These are just a smattering of the proposed legislations throughout the U.S.  These aren't acts or rhetoric by fringe groups on the Sunday talk shows, these are proposed legislation in the halls of our governments.

So, there's this rhetoric about "no one wants to take your guns away from you." and then there's the reality.

Conspiracy theory nutcases?  I think not.  One need only look at the DC law that was challenged in Heller to see that the reality is that there is a segment of our government that not only wants to take guns away from individuals, but has actually passed laws attempting to do just that.

So, yes it is an OMG, but it's an OMG that our government is ignoring the constitution as they deem it appropriate for their moral ends.

Which doesn't lend itself to productive discourse. 

Which also does not lead to actual effective legislation to keep the wrong people from doing the wrong thing, and the good people not getting hammered for it.

Do you comprehend the number of people with mental illness in this country? The number of people that have been helped significantly with the new class of anti-depressants.... now... tell them all it does not matter and that they need to "register" themselves as dangerous... that if deemed dangerous they will have their rights suspended... And because the last four mass murders involved SSIs that killed <100 people, that we as a society can't trust them without them being highly regulated.

See how that goes over with the ACLU. See how well that is received by the APA. See how well that sits with people that have friends and family with mental illness.

You know what, you're totally right. I'd much rather pi$$ off the NRA than the ACLU, the APA, and the family and friends of people that have mental illness.