Gun control vs. Vehicle control (DUI)..........

[rightwinger]

I think it's an excellent comparison, and I think all the requirements and responsibilities that are imposed upon drivers of cars should also be applied to gun ownership.

Therefore ownership of an automatic or semi-automatic firearm should have the following:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

And everyone who fits these requirements should own a gun, as a responsible citizen.

ONE is a priledge
AND the other is A
RIGHT
You're comparing apples too watermelons.

We have a RIGHT to a well regulated militia

Putting responsibilities on gun owners does not violate their constitutional rights

 

[The Rabbi]

I think it's an excellent comparison, and I think all the requirements and responsibilities that are imposed upon drivers of cars should also be applied to gun ownership.

Therefore ownership of an automatic or semi-automatic firearm should have the following:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

And everyone who fits these requirements should own a gun, as a responsible citizen.

ONE is a priledge
AND the other is A
RIGHT
You're comparing apples too watermelons.

We have a RIGHT to a well regulated militia

Putting responsibilities on gun owners does not violate their constitutional rights

The 2A does not say we have a right to a well regulated militia. It says we have a right to keep and bear arms.
What responsibilities would you like to put on criminals? How seriously do you think they will take them?

 

[rightwinger]

ONE is a priledge
AND the other is A
RIGHT
You're comparing apples too watermelons.

We have a RIGHT to a well regulated militia

Putting responsibilities on gun owners does not violate their constitutional rights

The 2A does not say we have a right to a well regulated militia. It says we have a right to keep and bear arms.
What responsibilities would you like to put on criminals? How seriously do you think they will take them?

Your gun....your responsibility

If a kid or a criminal gets a hold of it, you are responsible

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wow this is all kinds of stupid.

^^^ Irony ^^^

 

[Wry Catcher]

I would propose that the law require each gun owned to be insured, and allow the private insurance industry to determine the annual fee for each firearm. Let the actuary's determine the risk each type of firearm presents and set the fee. Then, any tort to occur by the use of said firearm by someone who used or who lost (for whatever reason) their gun will be personally liable.

I suspect some firearms would be deemed too dangerous for an insurance company to cover (much like some homeowner polices will not cover pit bulls or Dobermans) and make the ownership of such weapons a fiscal risk. Gun ownership is all about personal responsibility, isn't it?

I also believe a state issued license to own, possess or have in one's custody or control is appropriate and said license can be suspended or revoked for cause (i.e. convictions for DUI, Domestic Violence, any felony or detention in a hospital as a danger to self or others). All to be at the discretion of the individual state, but said license not allow for the transportation to any other state without an official approval by the other state(s).

 

[The Rabbi]

I would propose that the law require each gun owned to be insured, and allow the private insurance industry to determine the annual fee for each firearm. Let the actuary's determine the risk each type of firearm presents and set the fee. Then, any tort to occur by the use of said firearm by someone who used or who lost (for whatever reason) their gun will be personally liable.

I suspect some firearms would be deemed too dangerous for an insurance company to cover (much like some homeowner polices will not cover pit bulls or Dobermans) and make the ownership of such weapons a fiscal risk. Gun ownership is all about personal responsibility, isn't it?

I also believe a state issued license to own, possess or have in one's custody or control is appropriate and said license can be suspended or revoked for cause (i.e. convictions for DUI, Domestic Violence, any felony or detention in a hospital as a danger to self or others). All to be at the discretion of the individual state, but said license not allow for the transportation to any other state without an official approval by the other state(s).

And you believe this would prevent school shootings. why?

And there's that little 2A thing as well. You don't need a permit for a printing press. You don't need a permit to practice religion or buy a bible. You don't have to register with the state as a religious functionary or pass any kind of test.
I realize a cocksucker like you doesn't give a shit about civil rights and you probably violated a bunch in your pitiful working life. But those things matter.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I would propose that the law require each gun owned to be insured, and allow the private insurance industry to determine the annual fee for each firearm. Let the actuary's determine the risk each type of firearm presents and set the fee. Then, any tort to occur by the use of said firearm by someone who used or who lost (for whatever reason) their gun will be personally liable.

I suspect some firearms would be deemed too dangerous for an insurance company to cover (much like some homeowner polices will not cover pit bulls or Dobermans) and make the ownership of such weapons a fiscal risk. Gun ownership is all about personal responsibility, isn't it?

I also believe a state issued license to own, possess or have in one's custody or control is appropriate and said license can be suspended or revoked for cause (i.e. convictions for DUI, Domestic Violence, any felony or detention in a hospital as a danger to self or others). All to be at the discretion of the individual state, but said license not allow for the transportation to any other state without an official approval by the other state(s).

And you believe this would prevent school shootings. why?

And there's that little 2A thing as well. You don't need a permit for a printing press. You don't need a permit to practice religion or buy a bible. You don't have to register with the state as a religious functionary or pass any kind of test.
I realize a cocksucker like you doesn't give a shit about civil rights and you probably violated a bunch in your pitiful working life. But those things matter.

Violence plays role in shorter US life expectancy - Nation - The Boston Globe

 

[The Rabbi]

I would propose that the law require each gun owned to be insured, and allow the private insurance industry to determine the annual fee for each firearm. Let the actuary's determine the risk each type of firearm presents and set the fee. Then, any tort to occur by the use of said firearm by someone who used or who lost (for whatever reason) their gun will be personally liable.

I suspect some firearms would be deemed too dangerous for an insurance company to cover (much like some homeowner polices will not cover pit bulls or Dobermans) and make the ownership of such weapons a fiscal risk. Gun ownership is all about personal responsibility, isn't it?

I also believe a state issued license to own, possess or have in one's custody or control is appropriate and said license can be suspended or revoked for cause (i.e. convictions for DUI, Domestic Violence, any felony or detention in a hospital as a danger to self or others). All to be at the discretion of the individual state, but said license not allow for the transportation to any other state without an official approval by the other state(s).

And you believe this would prevent school shootings. why?

And there's that little 2A thing as well. You don't need a permit for a printing press. You don't need a permit to practice religion or buy a bible. You don't have to register with the state as a religious functionary or pass any kind of test.
I realize a cocksucker like you doesn't give a shit about civil rights and you probably violated a bunch in your pitiful working life. But those things matter.

Violence plays role in shorter US life expectancy - Nation - The Boston Globe

Translation: I have no reason to think what I proposed would do diddly squat to prevent violence but I distrust armed citizens and hate gun owners so want to stick it to them by making it difficult, expensive, and intrusive to own a gun.

Yeah, we got that.

 

[Vast LWC]

The 2A does not say we have a right to a well regulated militia. It says we have a right to keep and bear arms.
What responsibilities would you like to put on criminals? How seriously do you think they will take them?

A right to keep and bear arms, in the pursuit of forming a well-regulated militia.

Thus the "right to keep and bear arms" is not recognized in the Constitution as a universal right of man, like Free Speech, or Freedom of Religion...

It is recognized as a right for a specific purpose that serves the general welfare.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And you believe this would prevent school shootings. why?

And there's that little 2A thing as well. You don't need a permit for a printing press. You don't need a permit to practice religion or buy a bible. You don't have to register with the state as a religious functionary or pass any kind of test.
I realize a cocksucker like you doesn't give a shit about civil rights and you probably violated a bunch in your pitiful working life. But those things matter.

Violence plays role in shorter US life expectancy - Nation - The Boston Globe

Translation: I have no reason to think what I proposed would do diddly squat to prevent violence but I distrust armed citizens and hate gun owners so want to stick it to them by making it difficult, expensive, and intrusive to own a gun.

Yeah, we got that.

As angry as you get when anyone disagrees with you two things cross my mind: 1) you are too unstable to every be allowed to own or possess a gun; and 2) you're damn lucky you're a coward and only post obnoxious personal attacks on others while hiding behind a keyboard - if you behaved in public as you do here you'd been known as "Rabbi with the flattened nose".

Laws rarely prevent violence, and no where in my post did I suggest they do. Laws punish offenders by taking away their freedom (jails and prison) and taking away their assets (fines and confiscations).

Licensing can do both; so when some person decides he or she is above the law and sells a firearm to another who is not licensed, we confiscate all of their firearms, revoke their license and hold them responsible for any harm caused by the weapon (i.e. making them pay restitution). In very egregious situations we take away their freedom. Of course, all of this is done with due process within the rules of our jurisprudence.

 

[The Rabbi]

The 2A does not say we have a right to a well regulated militia. It says we have a right to keep and bear arms.
What responsibilities would you like to put on criminals? How seriously do you think they will take them?

A right to keep and bear arms, in the pursuit of forming a well-regulated militia.

Thus the "right to keep and bear arms" is not recognized in the Constitution as a universal right of man, like Free Speech, or Freedom of Religion...

It is recognized as a right for a specific purpose that serves the general welfare.

Wrong.
Scalia already dealt with that stinker. The first clause announces a purpose, but does not limit the right to that purpose.
Between you and Scalia I'd trust Scalia's knowledge of constitutional law more.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wrong.
Scalia already dealt with that stinker. The first clause announces a purpose, but does not limit the right to that purpose.
Between you and Scalia I'd trust Scalia's knowledge of constitutional law more.

No, it does not limit the right to bear arms, for people who have the ability to be part of said well-regulated militia.

Therefore, anyone who could not possibly be part of said militia would have no Constitutional reason to bear arms.

This would include the mentally or physically handicapped.

In addition, since the stated purpose of the right to bear arms is so that militias can form, it is perfectly in keeping with said amendment to have a database of available people to further the formation of said militia.

So, registration databases, licensing, and weeding out ineligible candidates would certainly be in keeping with the intent of the second amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong.
Scalia already dealt with that stinker. The first clause announces a purpose, but does not limit the right to that purpose.
Between you and Scalia I'd trust Scalia's knowledge of constitutional law more.

No, it does not limit the right to bear arms, for people who have the ability to be part of said well-regulated militia.

Therefore, anyone who could not possibly be part of said militia would have no Constitutional reason to bear arms.

This would include the mentally or physically handicapped.

In addition, since the stated purpose of the right to bear arms is so that militias can form, it is perfectly in keeping with said amendment to have a database of available people to further the formation of said militia.

So, registration databases, licensing, and weeding out ineligible candidates would certainly be in keeping with the intent of the second amendment.

No, the right is universal. It is not limited by an individual's ability to participate in a militia. I don't even know where you got that fucked up idea.

 

[Vast LWC]

No, the right is universal. It is not limited by an individual's ability to participate in a militia. I don't even know where you got that fucked up idea.

Oh I don't know, from this?

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.

 

[Ernie S.]

My room mate and I have been listening to all the gun control debates, as well as discussing what we've found on various messageboards.

Interestingly enough, when someone starts talking about regulating guns, the rabid right wing starts going into hyperbole mode and saying that there are lots of people killed in driving accidents via DUI, so that means we should tell Ford to quit making cars.

Well......................they might have a point but...........................


When DUI's started to be a problem, they lowered the BAC for DUI from .10 down to .08. Well, that helped to start bringing down deaths from DUI. What is the problem then if we lower the rounds that a magazine can carry down from 30 rounds to only 10? It could save lives.

We also increased the consequences for driving drunk. First time? Your liscence is suspended and you have to pay some hefty fines. If you shoot someone? Your liscence to carry a gun should be suspended and have some hefty fines as well.

If you kill someone because you had a gun? Well.............lets give the jail sentences some good math to follow. Say that the average lifespan is 75. If you kill someone who is 50? You serve 25 years hard time, no parole. You stole 25 years from someone else. If you kill someone who is 75? However many bullet holes are in them, you serve 5 years per hole, as well as 1 year for every bullet you're caught with.

You can see where the math would go if you killed 20 kids who were only 7-10 years old right? The person committing the crime would never be free again.

If you have a gun that someone ripped off of you? Depending on what the circumstances were (i.e. you didn't have them secure) you could serve a portion of the sentence of the shooter.

And yeah...........................that might make people think twice about shooting others.

Actually, lowering the BAC threshold had very little to do with a drop in DUI's. What led to less people driving drunk was active prosecution of DUI's, giving DUI felony status in many states, heavy fines, lengthy, mandatory license suspensions and jail terms for repeat offenders.
In other words, enforcing laws already on the books.
They didn't try outlawing sports cars or limiting the # of cylinders a car engine could have.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, the right is universal. It is not limited by an individual's ability to participate in a militia. I don't even know where you got that fucked up idea.

Oh I don't know, from this?

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.

Are you having a stroke? Unable to read?
Scalia wrote that the first clause announces the purpose of the second, but does not limit it. So the ability of any person to participate in a militia does not determine what sort of right he enjoys.

There are limits possible on the right, just like all of them. But there needs to be a compelling reason to do so. What is compelling? I don't know. But I havent seen any restrictions proposed that would be compelling.

 

[Ernie S.]

We have a RIGHT to a well regulated militia

Putting responsibilities on gun owners does not violate their constitutional rights

The 2A does not say we have a right to a well regulated militia. It says we have a right to keep and bear arms.
What responsibilities would you like to put on criminals? How seriously do you think they will take them?

Your gun....your responsibility

If a kid or a criminal gets a hold of it, you are responsible

If, due to my negligence, a child gets a hold of one of my weapons, I would expect to pay civil damages, but if someone breaks into my home and takes a weapon, on the off chance they happen to survive the experience, how the hell can I be held responsible?

 

[Ernie S.]

I would propose that the law require each gun owned to be insured, and allow the private insurance industry to determine the annual fee for each firearm. Let the actuary's determine the risk each type of firearm presents and set the fee. Then, any tort to occur by the use of said firearm by someone who used or who lost (for whatever reason) their gun will be personally liable.

I suspect some firearms would be deemed too dangerous for an insurance company to cover (much like some homeowner polices will not cover pit bulls or Dobermans) and make the ownership of such weapons a fiscal risk. Gun ownership is all about personal responsibility, isn't it?

I also believe a state issued license to own, possess or have in one's custody or control is appropriate and said license can be suspended or revoked for cause (i.e. convictions for DUI, Domestic Violence, any felony or detention in a hospital as a danger to self or others). All to be at the discretion of the individual state, but said license not allow for the transportation to any other state without an official approval by the other state(s).

Look idiot! If you break into my house and I kill you, feel free to sue me, OK?

But please realize, enter my home without permission, and you WILL die.

 

[Ernie S.]

The 2A does not say we have a right to a well regulated militia. It says we have a right to keep and bear arms.
What responsibilities would you like to put on criminals? How seriously do you think they will take them?

A right to keep and bear arms, in the pursuit of forming a well-regulated militia.

Thus the "right to keep and bear arms" is not recognized in the Constitution as a universal right of man, like Free Speech, or Freedom of Religion...

It is recognized as a right for a specific purpose that serves the general welfare.

It does not say that, though. What it says is, 'we realize that from time to time, we may need to defend against immediate threats from outside or within. It will take time to raise an army, so a well regulated militia should always be available'.

THEN it says, only partly in response to the first clause, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The second clause is no more limited by the first than freedom of religion is limited by freedom of press in the first amendment.

 

[Vast LWC]

Are you having a stroke? Unable to read?
Scalia wrote that the first clause announces the purpose of the second, but does not limit it. So the ability of any person to participate in a militia does not determine what sort of right he enjoys.

There are limits possible on the right, just like all of them. But there needs to be a compelling reason to do so. What is compelling? I don't know. But I havent seen any restrictions proposed that would be compelling.

Since the ability of a person to participate in a militia is in fact the purpose of the clause, why would further assistance to formation of said militia not be encouraged? Like a database of potential members, and documentation of potential members?

In addition, since the purpose of said right is clearly to further the formation of militias, what possible point would there be to guaranteeing the right to bear arms to people who could not possible participate in said militia?

Since just about everyone in the nation would be able to join a "well-regulated militia", it would only be the mentally disturbed, mentally handicapped, those who are physically unable to wield a weapon, and criminals, who lose their rights upon conviction anyway.

That seems pretty damn good to me.