It was an extreme analogy of control. Sorry….. Not that it would it actually happen like that….. You have to understand my logic….. Confiscation Just because they haven’t confiscated as of now doesn’t mean it can’t happen in the future. With the right kind of leadership, registration does not mean confiscation will happen but it does increase the chances of confiscation when the wrong people (party) get into power. As for Switzerland’s registration (See below – last part of second bullet) (Registration politically unfeasible) Changes due to the Schengen treaty The rules laid out above were changed on 1 December 2008 as Switzerland joined the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change: • Unlawful possession of guns will be punished. • Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit. Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market through this registration requirement. • Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number. • Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law. • While the above mentioned "free arms" remain exempt from the weapon acquisition permit, the vendor is required to notify the local arms bureau of the sale.
While I highly endorse a person taking a firearms safety course, and have done so myself, there is no logical reason to have to take it again. A person doesn't forget the lessons learned like treating all firearms as if they are loaded and never point a firearm at another person except in self-defense. I took a firearms safety course about 50 years ago and haven't forgotten even one of the safety procedures that I learned then and taking the same course over again is meaningless. Additionally, if we require it then who pays for it? The government should not be imposing a "fee" on self-defense so we should assume that the government is going to pay for these courses. That ulitmately amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in government expendatures that the government doesn't have. If we want to impose this additional expendature on government then let's first balance the federal budget before we start authorizing more unfunded mandates. Firearms and ammunition don't commit crimes so what purpose does registration serve? I would also like to ask how is a bullet is going to be registered? Does this mean that every bullet is going to have to be assigned a serial number? I don't know how many bullets are there are in America but if we assume that everyone with a firearm averages 100 rounds of ammunition that's over 30 billion bullets that would have to be tracked and every one fired would have to be reported and the corresponding S/N recorded as "expended" on a database. That borders on complete stupidity. We already have a legal process where convicted felons and the mentally ill can have their right to keep and possess firearms restored just like we have a legal process for denying them the right to own and possess firearms. Why not simply follow our current legal processes instead? We already have very strict laws related to owning fully automatic firearms and "heavy weapons" in place that require extensive background checks and licensing. There is no logical reason for changing those laws. Why should non-lethal weapons be prohibited? This would include weapons like tasers but that makes no sense even though tasers can be ineffective sometimes providing a false sense of security for the person. How does an unarmed guard defend the public from a criminal with a firearm? I agree that most "private militias" are comprised of a bunch of nut-cases but as long as they do no harm then they are relatively meaningless. Unfortunately they tend to be comprised of "homophobic white racists' that cause far more harm in society because of their prejudice than they do from owning firearms. I'm a card carrying Libertarian and I support reasonable regulation that limits the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Self-Defense. Such regulation should be based upon pragmatic necessity and to the least extent possible to protect our inalienable Rights. Reasonable Regulation: I have no problem with licensing of individuals that choose to carry firearms in public, regardless of whether they are concealed or not, as that represents a potential threat to public safety. I oppose licensing of individuals that have firearms on private property where it doesn't present a threat to public safety. I believe that CCW's (which, as noted above should cover concealed and unconcealed weapons carried in public) issued by one state should be honored by all states under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. We need a federal law ensuring that the Constitutional Right of Self-Defense (ref 2nd Amendment) be applied universally in all of the States. A person that has submitted to the background checks for carrying a firearm in public should be able to carry a firearm in public anywhere (except where specifically posted like in a courthouse, library, etc.) regardless of state lines. I have no problem with firearms being carried in public being registered because those firearms, like the individual, present a potential threat to public safety but oppose registration of firearms possessed on private property exclusively where they don't present a potential threat to public safety. People should be allowed to own fully automatic firearms based upon the more extensive checks currently required under federal law in all states. The federal law should be applicable everywhere in the United States related to owning and possessing fully automatic firearms and that law should be reasonable. We don't have a "crime" problem related to fully automatic firearms because of the current federal licensing requirements so they should not be changed except the restriction where only owning pre-1986 fully automatic firearms makes no sense and should be abolished. Why a fully automatic M16 manufactured before 1986 is legal to own but one made after 1986 is illegal to own makes no sense whatsoever considering that M16 are not being used in crime because of the licensing requirements for the owner. It was a restriction imposed not based upon any pragmatic necessity. These are reasonable limitations upon the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Self-Defense.
The problem that I have with a license for owning a firearm or mandatory training is that it ceases to become a right and then becomes a privilege. Everyone brings up cars as a licensing requirement: you don't have an enumerated restriction on the government concerning cars as you do with firearms. If you don't have a driving license, you don't get to drive legally. You don't have a firearms license, you don't get to defend yourself with a firearm. There is a huge difference between being able to get somewhere in your own personal conveyance vs being able to defend yourself with the best tool available against one or multiple attackers in your home or conducting legal business. With licensing comes all of the government red tape that comes with licensing offices. You don't get to exercise an existing right at that point, but must prove to the government that you are worthy of having a gun in your possession. A few weeks ago, I made the argument that restricting licensing requirements for elderly people to drive past an age of 65 without reaction time tests and better vision tests would increase public safety. What would prevent an anti-self defense person from making the same argument? Females can't life a x pound rifle so no long gun license for them. The same female may not be able to pull a specific trigger double action and hit the target so no license for them. Also, they have a kid so they are required to lock the gun up at all times. No gun for them if they don't comply. There are a multitude of different arguments that can narrow the range of people that are allowed to own a firearm if there is a licensing requirement. This is unjust when coming from a natural right to keep and bear arms that is enumerated in the constitution in the bill of rights that the government shall not infringe upon. Let me say it again, a licensing requirement would then become a privilege handed out by the government instead of a right that every single human being has a right to: self defense with the best tools available in a life or death situation.
[MENTION=6356]Shiva_TD[/MENTION]: The cost for basic training could be taken from tax revenue, which I have no qualms with. License renewal could involve passing an exam instead of retaking courses, with failure leading to a loss of ones license until they jump through the hoops to start over and get a new one. Balancing the federal budget ought to be a high priority right now, aye, but that is a separate matter. If I could get my way on enough other issues these provisions would not be prohibitively expensive. Registration is for aiding law enforcement when they respond to crimes, and for added deterrence against would-be violent criminals. Consumers could be held chiefly responsible for what happens to bullets they’ve purchased, and all the bullets in a package could have the same serial number as the pack itself if giving unique numbers is an issue. Aside from that, I do not believe anyone needs to report the use of these rounds. In regards to the mentally ill and felons getting guns, I was not aware they already could, and am not at all an expert on what the law currently is - it is admittedly too dry and uninteresting for me to spend much time dwelling on. I am open to having my mind changed on issues like this, and others have already persuaded me to adopt new positions on gun control more than once before in the past. I’m simply trying to respond rationally based on past experiences. For weapon types, to clarify, I support non-lethal weapons, semi-automatic weapons, fully automatic weapons, “assault rifles,” and virtually any other firearm a person could carry being legal. I am also alright with some light weapons (e.g. grenade launchers, if loaded with non-lethal munitions). I support bans on most other light, and all heavy weapons - e.g. anti-tank rifles, rocket launchers, mines, SAMs, mortars, crewed machine guns, armored fighting vehicles, and so forth). At one point you asked how an unarmed guard defends us from gun-toting criminals. They don’t. Mass shootings and terrorist attacks are uncommon enough that I do not support the waste of lots of resources on security measures that in practice are non-valuable. If there’s a violent criminal on the loose in a public space, stay out of their way and don’t provoke a fight. There is not any need for bloodshed most of the time, so far as I can tell; after the crime is over police can be sent after whoever was causing trouble. Though I object to people trying to take action and save the day on their own under many conditions - private guards included - I am not proposing that be outlawed. It’s just a point of view. Finally, I think we are using the libertarian label differently, which I’m perfectly fine with. Most American libertarians I know of seem to be classical liberals, whereas my impression of what a libertarian is like tends to be more along the lines of minachical or anarchical thought - whether they fall on the left, right, or belong in the radical centre. Having any form of gun control is a coercive, (debatably) non-consensual infringement on the autonomy of individuals. A libertarian, from my perspective, would ideally oppose any state limitation of private ownership of weapons. Most of your proposals in counter seem reasonable to me, by the way. [MENTION=59523]nimdabew[/MENTION]: Part of our disagreement may stem from conflicting views on rights. I consider rights nothing more than privileges folks feel morally-justified in demanding of each other. In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as natural law. Freedom, rights, liberties, etc. are all socially constructed and liable to change as do the values of society over time. Then again, I must say you bring up an excellent point insofar as licensing may be construed to be unconstitutional. As happens to be the case on a myriad of policy issues, it seems that I wouldn’t be able to get my way without first amending or completely replacing the current document. As for requirements for families to lock up firearms if children are in their household, I oppose that restriction but think it should be common sense for parents to keep these tools out of reach without any legal stipulations to motivate them. I would not want the licensing process to weed out most citizens from being eligible to own and bear arms - being a rather permissive and live-and-let-live kind of guy on a lot of issues. But you seem very well justified in your wariness toward the possibility of a more restrictive licensing process emerging at some point in the future.
With State budgets having to be cut because the States cannot deficit spend and with over 50% of all federal discretionary expendatures being funded with borrowing there are no "tax revenues" that can be used. It would require either an increase in State taxes or borrowing for the federal government to pay for licensing of the individual. While I endorse a person taking a firearm safety course (most gun owners typically do) and being competent with a firearm (most typically are) I see no point in requiring a license for a person that never takes a firearm into public. As I've mentioned previously it's a different matter if a person wants to carry a firearm in public though but the government should not be concerned with what I do in my own home related to self-defense. Registration does little if anything related to violent crime. The firearm needs to be linked to the criminal and it is the criminal that is responsible for the crime. Criminals generally don't care about the law and, as noted repeatedly, aren't going to register a firearm they're going to use in a criminal act and that they probably acquired on the black market. If the firearm is linked to the crime then "registration" accomplishes nothing from a law enforcement perspective. If the firearm is reported as stolen I don't have a problem with requiring the legal owner from reporting it and providing the serial number which is important in both identifying it as stolen and returning it to the owner if found. Serial numbers on bullets does nothing whatsoever for law enforcement and adds an unnecessary expense to production. All a criminal needs to do is load their own ammunition and that just creates another black market. The laws and system for criminals and the limitation on their Freedom to Exercise their Right of Self-Defense works fairly good although we can't keep them from possessing firearms and can only prosecute them if they're caught. With those that have mental problems we have a much tougher time identifying them and getting them before the court. Those closest to them, their family that would be most likely to identify them, often live in denial of how dangerous they might be. It is a problem that needs to be addressed as well as better facilities for treating the mentally ill. As long as I can keep my "artillery" (I make black powder cannons LOL) but there is a problem with your proposal. What does it really accomplish? We already have very strict licensing laws related to those weapons that would be on the list and some can be made at home. A landmine, for example, can be made in a matter of minutes in anyone's garage but they are already illegal to manufacture or possess. Others lack definition. What is an armored fighting vehicle? Does a Brinks truck qualify for that? People currently own (legally) tanks and the crime rate with tanks doesn't seem to be a problem so why outlaw them? Once agian I believe a problem of public safety needs to be the primary concern but if no problem exists then prohibitions cannot be pragmatically rationalized. It is not cost effective to put armed guards everywhere and on that we can agree. At the sametime if a private entity wants to (e.g. a bank or armored truck hauling money) then I see no reason to prohibit it. As noted once a crime is committed then it is up to law enforcement to track them down and arrest them. We don't want to encourage vigilantism in any form. I'm on another forum for libertarians and there are "minachical or anarchical" members but their arguments generally fail. Mainstream libertarianism relates a classic liberal political ideology where infringements upon the Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights is understood to be a pragmatic necessity. It does not disparage the Right but acknowledges that reasonall infringements based upon pragmatic necessity of the Freedom the Exercise a right can be justifiable so long as they are the least infringement necessary to protect the Inalienable Rights of Others in society. By way of example, incarceration which infringes upon the Freedom the Exercise the Right of Liberty is a pragmatice necessity for society to protect itself from those that have demonstrated through their actions that they would violate our Rights. Owning a gun is not coercive anymore than being a 250 lb man is coercive. It depends on how the firearm is used. A lot of things are potentially coercive (e.g. a butcher's knife) but we don't outlaw them or require licensing of the individual or registration of the knife. Remember that a rock was the first deadly weapon used to commit murder in the Bible. Should we license individuals and register rocks? My proposals are based upon a pragmatic necessity and are to the least extent possible to protect the Rights of Others in society. Rather "un-American" as the United States was founded based upon the ideology that our Rights are Inalienable and the primary reason for government even existing is to protect our inalienable Rights from being violated by other individuals. Not likely to ever happen. This is akin to those that believe registration is a pathway to confiscation. That isn't going to happen either because it would also require a Constitutional amendment that would never be ratified. I don't even think the State of New York would ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would allow confiscation of firearms and New York has just passed the strictest gun law in the nation (that I believe will be struck down in part by the US Supreme Court eventually). A responsible gun owner should take reasonable precautions to protect others from firearms then own. Not doing so could be considered as criminal negligence if someone is harmed because of a firearm accident but firearm accidents, while getting a lot of news coverage sometimes, are really very rare. Deaths from firearms accidents in the home are on a par with things like dying from lightening and shark attacks. They happen but are extremely rare.
Gun control lessons from Prohibition Full article http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/26/gun-control-lessons-from-prohibition/ Since Australia enacted its landmark gun control legislation in 1996, gun-related homicides have declined, but almost every other sort of violent crime has increased. While the homicide rate fell from 1.9 per 100,000 persons to 1.3 from 1996 to 2007, assaults increased from 623 per 100,000 persons to 840 during that same time — a 35 percent jump. The sexual assault rate likewise increased from 78 per 100,000 persons to 94 — a 21 percent jump. In other words, for every 0.6 person out of 100,000 who did not fall victim to a homicide, 217 suffered from a violent assault, and another 16 suffered from sexual assault. While it’s impossible to know how much of this shift was the result of the 1996 laws, it is not exactly an overwhelming endorsement of Australia’s gun control regime. The situation is similar in the United Kingdom. A recent Reason.com article points out that home burglaries are four times more likely to occur when the occupants are home in the United Kingdom compared to the United States, suggesting that British burglars may simply have less to fear than their American counterparts. Likewise, your chances of being mugged are six times higher in London than in New York City. So much for gun control making people safer. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/26/gun-control-lessons-from-prohibition/#ixzz2L1RJqjnV Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Yes but but but...... The numbers typically do not sort out whether or not a given gun death was suicide by cop or suicide by attacking the wrong little old lady with a gun or just plain suicide or what-have-you. The fact that Wyoming has more guns and might have more deaths per 1000 per year might be indicative that a man who is trying to beat another man to death got his pecker blown off and bled to death. That is the problem with the statistics the gun grabbers are throwing around. Someone goes after my daughter with a steel pipe. She submits and gets beaten and either robbed or raped. (This does not show up in the statistics the gun grabbers are so artfully trumpeting). She instead opts to take the responsibility to defend herself and puts one round in that guy's right eye. Now there is a gun death so the gun grabbers can say that GUNS ARE EVIL. None of the grabbers are ever ever trying to correlate actual violence with gun deaths. Non-gun violent deaths outnumber gun violent deaths eight to one. Are you going to ban big burly guys with sociopathic tendencies?
My stance is that you should have a background check, a mental health evaluation, and take a self defense class in which you have to engage in a boxing match in order to get a gun.
We could do this for cars, motor cycles, alcohol, knifes, etc. I have no problem with a background check. Most firearms purchases already mandate one.
It's not law abiding gun owners that you need to worry about, it's the criminals that DON'T follow the law, which is why they're CRIMINALS, so regardless of whether guns are banned or not they will still commit crimes with firearms or some other means, it will just make it harder for the innocente who had their firearms tooken away to defend themselves against said criminals and a ban of any kind would only see a rise in the crime rates, I only wish everyone could realize this.
During the Clinton Justice dept under Janet Reno coupled with the anti-Gun Joyce Foundation commissioned the anti-gun National Academy of Sciences to conduct an exhaustive study of all gun control measures enacted to that date. After 5 years during the Bush administration they issued their report. Bottom line....they did not find a single gun control act that had a measurable positive effect on either gun violence or accidents...not a one. They did find one, and only one, act that had a tiny but measurable positive effect on suicides, the Brady check... So, if not a single act has the slightest measurable effect on violent crime, why should we rush to further damage a constitutional right with more useless laws? The answer...the goal is not about crime but control. Break the protection and they can break any....
None of the current laws would prevent a determined criminal from getting his hands on an automatic weapon if he really wanted to. Automatic weapons will always be just as easy to get as a brick of cocaine. I am not saying there should not be any regulations on automatic guns, but it is something we should remember.
I'm not in support of FEDERAL gun control. I am perfectly fine with states imposing gun controls. The reason for this is pretty simple, you can move if you don't like the rules. I am also a strong supporter of a well organized militia in each and every state, which is what the intent of the constitution, but somehow it got lost in translation. I didn't find many good state run militias, and it's ironic because that is an EXTREMELY important part of our constitution and what this country was founded on. I am fine with states creating and enforcing these kinds of laws, but I am very against the national government controlling these rules (you end up with a central government with WAY too much power).
A state can trample a citizens rights just as easy as on a federal level. I live in Mass where we still have the Clinton era assualt weapons ban, I shouldn't have to move because they are infrindging further on the Ameican's rights. The Bill of Rights were made for all Americans, not just state specific. The militia was replaced by the national gaurd along time ago, but what the second amendment is meant to do is have the people armed so that they themselves may form a militia or the government form a militia if necesary. All that is needed is to be sufficiently armed and trained to shoot for a militia to be considered "well regulated" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Basically it gives the people the right to have arms for the potential need to form a militia, had they only wanted a standing militia to bear arms, it would have said "the people of the militia".
Look, if you live in a state where you don't like the rules, then MOVE. I know that sounds harsh, but at least you live in a country where you have the choice to move. The bill of rights extends to everybody, but let's face it, the ONLY reason you need an AR with 30+ rounds is to defend against tyranny really (or whatever other reasons people have, but to me this is probably the best reason). Since I am assuming you are a gun owner, are you in a militia? How many gun owners are in a militia? Look, rather than playing the "what if tyranny happens" game, why not just gather a group of people and say "ok, we're a militia, we want these guns for the purpose of defending our rights and liberties" because let's be honest, if your goal with an AR IS to defend against tyranny, it's gonna be a hard fight all alone. If THAT were more common, I would be more opposed to states banning ARs (since I have faith that the majority of people abide by the law, and with a militia, you have everybody keeping an eye on everybody to make sure they have a common goal...to protect their liberty). The problem is, a bunch of individuals have their ARs, and they claim that it is to defend against tyranny and whatever else, and that's it. Do you really think you're AR is gonna defend against 100 cops, SWAT, military, etc.? The ONLY defense against a tyrannical government is to band together with others who believe in civil liberties and defend them. You owning an AR isn't going to stop a tyrannical government though, and throughout history, the way that government often takes control is by utilizing the fact that individuals DON'T band together, and they have this "every man for himself" mentality, and that just doesn't work.
Yes, but they can be prosecuted if they sell the gun to someone who is not allowed to own a gun. It is a federal crime to do so.
Yeah,Silencers w/o having to have a trust and full-auto for small arms.Maybe even m203s. That's what the founders would approve of..maybe even mortars and grenades. Body armor, too.
why was this Necro'd but I haven't voted yet Federal gun regulations violate the constitution TWICE they violate the tenth amendment with the commerce clause nonsense and they violate the second amendment state regulations concerning place and use restrictions may be valid. state penalties for using a gun to wrongly harm or intimidate others are valid
156 votes, and half of us are gun owners who support less control. While I doubt that this reflects the real National numbers, I think it suggests very strongly that our Nation, as a whole, feels that way.
And right now in addition to that 50 percent, there is another 16 percent that supports less gun control, thats 66 percent against any further regulation on firearms.
It depends, some laws are pointless. I think carry and ownership restrictions should be abolished, and replaced with Federal Universal Background checks, laws requiring UBC's for private firearm transfers, and laws requiring dealers who provide the UBC to maintain a registry of what firearms were sold and to who, that way the only way they can obtain information is to subpoena them for information during criminal investigations, with strict laws passed only allowing state or federal governments to obtain this information when necessary to follow up on investigation of a felony involving a firearm, even if that felony is possession of a handgun by a felon. Where are the guns felons are getting coming from? Nobody knows, because there's no record of who has what gun, who's selling what gun to which person etc. I also think a federal preemption should be passed ruling all federal and state restrictions on carry and ownership that apply to those who have not had their 2nd amendment right stripped through due process are unconstitutional, including on automatic weapons.
You want registration. I'm glad you don't make the laws. Do you really trust a Gov. that would build that alphabet thing in Utah, to monitor ALL digital communication, to keep from finding a way to breach the registration records? Oh yea. It would break as a BATFE agent requiring an FFL to disclose his registration list. Then, we'd find out that it had become SOP for he BATFE to threaten every FFL in America with forfeiture of his FFL in the case of non-compliance. They would maintain plausible deniability by storing all of the records on Billaries' private email server.
FFL's already keep records of all sales. Law enforcement can compel the FFL to make these records available for specific investigations. This is the current law. According to studies that interviewed inmates in prisons, the criminals say that they acquired their guns by theft and straw purchases. A federal database (registration) would be required if you want to know who owns what gun. The problem is that criminals won't be complying with gun registration. That means hundreds of thousands of firearms would not be registered. That kind of make the law useless.
I support the status quo. With that said, I think worthwhile discussion comes when people discuss this becoming more of a federal issue than a federal and states' issue. I think the answers to the issue we find may be find that in the discussion than in the idealistic ideals of owning a firearm vs. not.
