All this talk of "sensible gun control" ignores the one thing that makes guns unique as they relate to government regulation. That government must ban them to gain power and that all governments eventually try to ban them. I'd support some "sensible" forms of gun control if: - I could be sure it won't backfire and result in confiscation, I can't. - We had national right to carry, we don't - We repealed restrictions on many technical aspects, suppressors, select fire, SBRs, etc. we haven't - We limited who is prohibited from owning to only those convicted of violent felonies, and then had a sensible auto reinstatement period. - We had federal pre-emption, no state, county, or city is allowed to have a gun control law more restrictive then federal law. - We erased the distinction between pistol and rifle. - A Constitutional amendment making it a crime punishable by impeachment to violate the this standard or the rest of the Constitution. What would I support; - An endorsement on a persons ID/DL much like commercial truck or motorcycle endorsements or like restrictions like a glasses restriction. --- A "P" for prohibited, have a "P" on your ID, no gun for you. --- A "C" for concealed carry, got a "C" you're trusted to carry loaded near anywhere. --- A "D" for destructive devices, --- A class, test, and standard for each endorsement. - Firearm registration, only to track X serial numbered gun belongs to Y person. - Because endorsements are on the license no background check is necessary. A sales record is entered online much like a vehicle sales record.
They're losing Korben. Why support anything at all. If we get hit or if BLM can get the riot it wants it B-more or Chicago, gun control is dead in the water.
I agree that they're losing, the tide has certainly turned on this issue. I'll stick with it though, we haven't won it all yet, still a lot of ground to make up.
Why would you include the registration part? Never mind the reason given for it. The information would be abused just as soon as it became available, in the interest of national security, or for whatever other fabricated "reason". I can see it coming. You register your 1902 Dachshund repeater with the proper authorities, only so they know who it belongs to in the event that it gets stolen. 3 weeks later, you start getting spam emails. "Just in case you should happen to have a 1902 Dachshund repeater, you should look over our vast array of tactical gear"... and so forth. This happens to a lot of people. It gets investigated. The Gov. did nothing wrong. What happened was that hackers from Bali got into the Gov. list, and sold the info to people who want to sell stuff to you. Take out the registration part!
You can not trust the government, and you cannot trust the government of the future will obey the law. Lets say you get everything you want, in 10 years the political winds could dramatically shift - but gun registration will already be in place and cannot be undone easily and not quickly. Imagine what will happen the next time the socialist democrats win a super majority, last time it was obamacare, next time it will be a gun ban. And if they cant get that, then they could just as easily use the IRS to target gun owners or apply some other form of harassment - we've seen that approach before. And your proposed license is the same as a registry. No gun registration ever, not for any reason, not under any conditions. Never.
That’s an argument for government having no information and no power and is obviously unrealistic. If you’re unwilling to strike any kind of realistic balance you might as well call for scrapping all government entirely. Also, the mirror of your argument is that you can’t trust any individual and you can’t trust any individual in the future will obey the law therefore nobody should have guns.
This assumes guns are a problem. Guns aren't a problem. No anti-gun person is interested in "compromise", only capitulation.
That's a huge unwarranted leap, because I do not trust the government in one area does not mean I have zero trust in govt in all areas. Gun rights is part of the checks and balances on the federal govt, and for that reason should be outside the purview of govt control. There is a big difference between the power held by an individual with a firearm, and an individual who with the stroke of a pen can impose his will (and has the power to impose his will) on millions of people. And if I am in a room with an armed lunatic, I have a chance to walk out of that room and continue my life. With an out of control dictator who will target me for my political beliefs (including gun rights), my chances (and millions of other peoples chances) of walking through that scenario and resuming a normal life is extremely low.
You didn't say anything about any specific area, you just stated that we can't trust government because we don't know what kind of government could get in to office in the future. I don't see how that concern could be limited to gun registration alone. There are much more powerful tools a corrupt government could make use of (it's usually the military and the judiciary). So nobody should have that power? That in itself doesn't exclude gun registration though, it just needs checks and balances like any other power.
You should not completely trust the govt. People should be suspicious of everything the govt does, and should verify that the govt is staying within the bounds set by the people. The govt has powerful tools at its disposal - the police, the legal system, the regulatory system. Should the federal govt have those powerful tools? Under the Constitution, no it should not. With respect to the safety of the People, the govt should not have such powerful tools. And note that the Constitution allows the supreme court and only such lower courts as the Congress establishes through legislation. The Congress can eliminate the federal court system except for the supreme court. Given the abuses of the federal court system, it should be eliminated. No, if one branch of the govt has control of another branches power to check and balance, then those checks and balances can be eliminated, minimized, or bypassed. And there is the history of gun control in the USA. There is no level of gun control less than a complete gun ban at which the gun control crowd will accept any level of gun violence. No degree of gun control is perfect, at each incremental step of control there will still be violence, the banners will claim its a tragedy and will want to take another incremental step in control. That means the banners cannot be trusted, not to keep their promises, not to obey the law.
Governments are just groups of people and indeed can only be trusted as much as people can be in general (which isn't as much as we'd like). My point is that you can't just say the government shouldn't have a particular power or resource (such as gun registration) for the singular reason that "We can't trust government!". If you accept that the government has some powers (because without any there is no government) you have to justify why the shouldn't have a power they do (and indeed why they should have one they don't). Without those tools, what would government do? What would be the point of having it at all? Also, you can't fall back on the Constitution here. It's open to interpretation here, could be changed and anyway, we're talking about government as a concept wider than just the USA. There principles apply with or without a formal constitution relating to them. True, but then neither can gun proponents. Again, you're all just people - there's nothing special about anyone on the basis of their opinions on this topic. If we could trust everyone to keep to their word, we wouldn't need laws in the first place or governments to manage them.
Laws to punish illegal gun usage or ownership are not exactly in short supply. Current "gun control" legislation does nothing to address any of the problems. In effect, they want to ban the word "fire", so as to prevent people screaming it in crowded movie theaters. The problem is that anyone who accidentally says fire, or uses the word for a good purpose has now broken the law, either accidentally or for using the word "fire" when they should logically be able to do so. And of course it doesn't stop anyone who wants to use it criminally in a crowded movie theater from doing so. That's pretty much what they are doing, and what they are doing is just criminalizing people trying to protect themselves.
...............The 2nd Amendment meant something ! "If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons make you fat." Will Ferrell
Can we step back to the actual point of my comment? We're not having a discussion about the validity of any specific gun laws or regulation. Your position is "No gun registration ever, not for any reason, not under any conditions. Never." - that leaves no scope for discussion. The only reason you gave for this position was that we can't guarantee that some future government won't abuse that system. You've still not explained how that principle wouldn't apply to any significant power or resource government is granted or even any that exists but is restricted to them by statute or convention. You're either making a much wider argument for massive (I'd argue complete) reduction in government at every level or you're just throwing out rhetoric to try to shore up a position of principle rather than practicality.
That's because none of the "gun regulation" proposals or things that have become law had anything to do with crime, and none of them have had any impact. Those that want guns gone know this, and use that lack of results to say "see, more needs to be done". Gun registration does nothing to combat crime, and at no point in history has it had any positive effect. I would also agree that reduction in government from a centralized standpoint is always beneficial and less likely to lead to tyrannical government.
I don't. Gun control has done nothing to help with violent crime. How could anyone fathom disarming a majority of the law abiding black population? The population that could put a stop to the stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) in their neighborhoods. Well we did it, and they are in ghettos, what's next the ovens? This is America and I will not sit idly by whilst another genocide occurs, with a majority of the population growing more discontent with the actions of the other a retribution is bound to occur. We must help those who wish to help us, to help us better a country. In a war zone like Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit , etc we need to arm the law abidind for that goal to be accomplished. The race baiting needs to stop, the intolerance by the left and the far right NEEDS to stop, we all need to start this country into a new golden age.
Power corrupts, the more power, the more of a corrupting influence it becomes. That's the problem. In general, I trust people as individuals. Any person who supports gun rights has to have a basic trust in people - nobody would arm someone they distrust and think are dangerous. Organizations are a different matter because organizations equate to power, and those organizations attract people who have their own ideas on how to use that power. That's what the Founders of the nation understood and why they created a system with so many checks and balances, and in which (originally) the power of the people and states far outweighed the power of the federal govt.
Present a list of reasons that would justify government maintaining a list of hundreds of millions of individuals who are breaking no laws, and needs to be updated daily, if not hourly, all at the expense of taxpayers.
"- We limited who is prohibited from owning to only those convicted of violent felonies, and then had a sensible auto reinstatement period. " I believe a " sensible auto reinstatement period" would be when they have finished paying their debt to socierty if we want them not to have guns longer, make the sentence longer I have no issue with people on probation\parole not being able to drink, own guns or whatever other restrictions gov places on them, but once they have payed their debt to society, they should once again be free Americans I would not support the below, that could definitely be abused by the gov, employers and the like What would I support; - An endorsement on a persons ID/DL much like commercial truck or motorcycle endorsements or like restrictions like a glasses restriction. --- A "P" for prohibited, have a "P" on your ID, no gun for you. --- A "C" for concealed carry, got a "C" you're trusted to carry loaded near anywhere. --- A "D" for destructive devices, .
Now you seem to have some understanding. The federal govt is far too large and powerful and should be greatly reduced in size and scope. The position of "no gun registration ever" does not mean there can be no laws preventing certain people from owning firearms. Nobody wants an armed lunatic running around. For example a universal background check could have passed after Sandy Hook if done along Coburns proposal - the seller can do the check on the internet, the individual seller keeps the records, no FFL involvement is required, no FFL records or federal records which can be used to create a registry or database in the future. But Schumer refused, he wanted all sales and transfers and loans of firearms to go through an FFL and the FFL keeps the records - in other words he wanted a registry. The fundamental problem is that the gun banners have poisoned the well, through their actions over the past 90 years they have shown they cannot be trusted.
I'm all for compromise. Before I agree to further infringements upon my right to arms, I want to know what those who seek those further infringements are willing to offer in return.
Why would you voluntarily give up your rights? Haven't the right to bear arms been infringed upon enough? Its clear that more guns means less crime, so what would anyone hope to gain by further restrictions on firearms? The history of the gun control crowd over the past 90 years is one of lying, propaganda, and corruption. Remember, in the 1970's gun control groups had names like "National Coalition to Ban Handguns", the names have changed and the marketing is deceiving but the goals have not changed. They still openly advocate for a ban on all handguns. http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm And don't forget they want a ban on so-called "assault weapons" (basically all semi-auto centerfire long guns and more).
