Why the 2nd Amendment needs to be reconsidered...

[Dubya]

a concealed carry permit is just what you described.

I jumped through hoops to get mine and my fingerprints are on file with the state.

That permit should be enough for anyone and with it I should be able to buy what ever weapon I want with no questions asked.

You keep saying that, but who knows what you have done since you received your CCP?

If I am convicted of a crime my carry permit is the first thing that will be revoked you idiot.

Even if I am charged with a crime I will lose my permit.

You don't know much about the law do you?

I'm sure they don't cross reference the names of people with carry permits with everyone convicted of a crime. They aren't going to come a take your carry permit from you.

You claim that piece of paper should allow you to buy a gun, no questions asked, and I say it shouldn't.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You keep saying that, but who knows what you have done since you received your CCP?

If I am convicted of a crime my carry permit is the first thing that will be revoked you idiot.

Even if I am charged with a crime I will lose my permit.

You don't know much about the law do you?

I'm sure they don't cross reference the names of people with carry permits with everyone convicted of a crime. They aren't going to come a take your carry permit from you.

You claim that piece of paper should allow you to buy a gun, no questions asked, and I say it shouldn't.

You're sure huh?

Well then of course you must be right.

Hey moron the first thing the fucking cops would see if they ever ran my SS number or fingerprints is that I have a carry permit.

Like I said you don't know shit from shinola.

 

[Foxfyre]

I find needing a license to practice a Constitutional right objectionable Foxfyre. Someone raised an interesting point here in Michigan last week. A firearm manufactured in Michigan and sold to a Michigan should be exempt from any federal law.

There are already laws restricting our constitutional right to bear arms on a school ground, in a bar, in a courthouse, etc. etc. etc. In New Mexico, the law says you can wear a visible gun in a holster on your hip or carry a rifle or shotgun wherever you please so long as it is visible - AND - provided it is not a place where no guns are allowed. Almost every state or province has laws against discharging a weapon in close proximity to other people. It requires jumping through a whole bunch of hoops to get a CCP though.

A license would simply provide another layer of insurance that the person knew the laws regarding use of those weapons and had at least basic knowledge of gun safety. I can't see how that would be any infringement of our rights any more than requiring a newspaper to acquire a business license or a church to secure a not-for-profit charter and permit to build.

Because granting a license is the same thing as acknowledging that the government has the absolute authority to regulate your rights as it sees fit, conditioned upon the whims of current fads.

Governments are not empowered to grant (license) or revoke (ban) rights. They exist for the purpose of protecting those rights from abuses.

Giving ground on any single front is tantamount to saying that the people do not have rights that are not given to them by the rulers of our nation.

If we go with your theory, then government should not have any power to restrict me from carrying my shotgun into the school building or the courthouse or an Isotopes game or the neighborhood bar. Currently the government restricts me from taking any kind of weapon into any of those places.

Currently many states license people for concealed carry in public places, something that is otherwise illegal.

I can't see how a simple licensing system for visible weapons in public places--a license that would ensure that you were competent enough to pass the test and knew the basic law and safety concepts--would be any different than other government regulation of firearm use.

I am an avid 2nd Amendment rights person as much as an avid protector of all our constitutional and unalienable rights. That is a drum I have been beating for a lot of years now. Taking away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms would mean that we have no rights at all. I will put my life on the line if necessary to prevent our government from nullifying our rights and implementing a totalitarian system.

But I am also not opposed to common sense public safety rules and regs that benefit us all.

 

[saveliberty]

You keep saying that, but who knows what you have done since you received your CCP?

If I am convicted of a crime my carry permit is the first thing that will be revoked you idiot.

Even if I am charged with a crime I will lose my permit.

You don't know much about the law do you?

I'm sure they don't cross reference the names of people with carry permits with everyone convicted of a crime. They aren't going to come a take your carry permit from you.

You claim that piece of paper should allow you to buy a gun, no questions asked, and I say it shouldn't.

No one cares what your incorrect opinion is moron.

 

[saveliberty]

There are already laws restricting our constitutional right to bear arms on a school ground, in a bar, in a courthouse, etc. etc. etc. In New Mexico, the law says you can wear a visible gun in a holster on your hip or carry a rifle or shotgun wherever you please so long as it is visible - AND - provided it is not a place where no guns are allowed. Almost every state or province has laws against discharging a weapon in close proximity to other people. It requires jumping through a whole bunch of hoops to get a CCP though.

A license would simply provide another layer of insurance that the person knew the laws regarding use of those weapons and had at least basic knowledge of gun safety. I can't see how that would be any infringement of our rights any more than requiring a newspaper to acquire a business license or a church to secure a not-for-profit charter and permit to build.

Because granting a license is the same thing as acknowledging that the government has the absolute authority to regulate your rights as it sees fit, conditioned upon the whims of current fads.

Governments are not empowered to grant (license) or revoke (ban) rights. They exist for the purpose of protecting those rights from abuses.

Giving ground on any single front is tantamount to saying that the people do not have rights that are not given to them by the rulers of our nation.

If we go with your theory, then government should not have any power to restrict me from carrying my shotgun into the school building or the courthouse or an Isotopes game or the neighborhood bar. Currently the government restricts me from taking any kind of weapon into any of those places.

Currently many states license people for concealed carry in public places, something that is otherwise illegal.

I can't see how a simple licensing system for visible weapons in public places--a license that would ensure that you were competent enough to pass the test and knew the basic law and safety concepts--would be any different than other government regulation of firearm use.

I am an avid 2nd Amendment rights person as much as an avid protector of all our constitutional and unalienable rights. That is a drum I have been beating for a lot of years now. Taking away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms would mean that we have no rights at all. I will put my life on the line if necessary to prevent our government from nullifying our rights and implementing a totalitarian system.

But I am also not opposed to common sense public safety rules and regs that benefit us all.

...and Darkwind would be in the right. Trading liberty for safety (which is questionable). Bad trade.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because granting a license is the same thing as acknowledging that the government has the absolute authority to regulate your rights as it sees fit, conditioned upon the whims of current fads.

Governments are not empowered to grant (license) or revoke (ban) rights. They exist for the purpose of protecting those rights from abuses.

Giving ground on any single front is tantamount to saying that the people do not have rights that are not given to them by the rulers of our nation.

If we go with your theory, then government should not have any power to restrict me from carrying my shotgun into the school building or the courthouse or an Isotopes game or the neighborhood bar. Currently the government restricts me from taking any kind of weapon into any of those places.

Currently many states license people for concealed carry in public places, something that is otherwise illegal.

I can't see how a simple licensing system for visible weapons in public places--a license that would ensure that you were competent enough to pass the test and knew the basic law and safety concepts--would be any different than other government regulation of firearm use.

I am an avid 2nd Amendment rights person as much as an avid protector of all our constitutional and unalienable rights. That is a drum I have been beating for a lot of years now. Taking away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms would mean that we have no rights at all. I will put my life on the line if necessary to prevent our government from nullifying our rights and implementing a totalitarian system.

But I am also not opposed to common sense public safety rules and regs that benefit us all.

...and Darkwind would be in the right. Trading liberty for safety (which is questionable). Bad trade.

I think you aren't hearing me. Government already regulates the use of firearms in public places. That is true in all 50 states. Issuing a license would only add a layer of public responsibility and would take away nobody's rights. If anything, it would allow some lessening of restrictions on firearms that currently exist.

 

[saveliberty]

If we go with your theory, then government should not have any power to restrict me from carrying my shotgun into the school building or the courthouse or an Isotopes game or the neighborhood bar. Currently the government restricts me from taking any kind of weapon into any of those places.

Currently many states license people for concealed carry in public places, something that is otherwise illegal.

I can't see how a simple licensing system for visible weapons in public places--a license that would ensure that you were competent enough to pass the test and knew the basic law and safety concepts--would be any different than other government regulation of firearm use.

I am an avid 2nd Amendment rights person as much as an avid protector of all our constitutional and unalienable rights. That is a drum I have been beating for a lot of years now. Taking away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms would mean that we have no rights at all. I will put my life on the line if necessary to prevent our government from nullifying our rights and implementing a totalitarian system.

But I am also not opposed to common sense public safety rules and regs that benefit us all.

...and Darkwind would be in the right. Trading liberty for safety (which is questionable). Bad trade.

I think you aren't hearing me. Government already regulates the use of firearms in public places. That is true in all 50 states. Issuing a license would only add a layer of public responsibility and would take away nobody's rights. If anything, it would allow some lessening of restrictions on firearms that currently exist.

No, I hear you, you want to add a layer of government, which separates us even further from our Constitutional right. What should be happening here is stripping government of the control they received incorrectly.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Not that I think it was about anything but Militias, but let's pretend we are in National Rampage Association crazy land...

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

This is a AR-15 Bushmaster.

It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

Now, before one of you mutants gets on here and tells me, "Well, the First Amendment never considered Television", you are right.

And we don't treat Television like the printed press. There are restrictions on what you can broadcast, when you can broadcast, and who can broadcast. More to the point, the Television industry largely self-regulates. they don't put commercials for Trojan condoms on The Hub kiddie network.

You haven't watched Cable lately have you?

 

[Dubya]

If I am convicted of a crime my carry permit is the first thing that will be revoked you idiot.

Even if I am charged with a crime I will lose my permit.

You don't know much about the law do you?

I'm sure they don't cross reference the names of people with carry permits with everyone convicted of a crime. They aren't going to come a take your carry permit from you.

You claim that piece of paper should allow you to buy a gun, no questions asked, and I say it shouldn't.

You're sure huh?

Well then of course you must be right.

Hey moron the first thing the fucking cops would see if they ever ran my SS number or fingerprints is that I have a carry permit.

Like I said you don't know shit from shinola.

If the cops were running your SS number, it would be because you are under arrest, not because you are convicted of a crime and know who you are. If they were running your fingerprints, they would be checking against the fingerprints found at a crime scene and not doing it for identification. Now have you forgotten you said convicted of a crime? If you are convicted of a crime, the cops aren't coming to your door looking for your carry permit. Your carry permit is obviously your Gollum/ring precious to you, but it isn't that important to the rest of the world. We know you think it has power over everything, but we just aren't buying it. You need to get a background check to buy weapons, so get used to it!

 

[Foxfyre]

...and Darkwind would be in the right. Trading liberty for safety (which is questionable). Bad trade.

I think you aren't hearing me. Government already regulates the use of firearms in public places. That is true in all 50 states. Issuing a license would only add a layer of public responsibility and would take away nobody's rights. If anything, it would allow some lessening of restrictions on firearms that currently exist.

No, I hear you, you want to add a layer of government, which separates us even further from our Constitutional right. What should be happening here is stripping government of the control they received incorrectly.

No. I want to make an argument that gives those who would separate us further from our Constitutional rights an out by providing a reasonable remedy for most of their fears while NOT separating us further from our Constitutional rights.

I am of the old generation that doesn't see everybody with a different point of view as the enemy. I may not agree with their argument at the end of the day, but I can understand the logic they use to support it. Yes some arguing for more gun control are total jerks and idiots, but I simply can't see ALL who argue for more gun control in that light.

And sometimes, if we can get past our conditioning to automatically insult and/or demonize the 'loyal opposition' we just might find a soluton that everybody can live with and that won't violate anybody's constitutional or unalienable rights.

 

[thereisnospoon]

But the argument JoeB seems to be making, that the President seems to be making, that other pro more gun control people seem to be making, is that taking my gun will fix the problem.

Lets focus on the criminal for a change instead of thinking that more controls on responsible, law abiding citizens is the way to accomplish something.

The thing is, the criminal is only a part of the problem. Most gun deaths are sucides, domestic murders and accidents...

Lanza, Holmes, Loughner all had clean criminal records before they went on their shooting sprees. Cho (the VA Tech shooter) should have been on watch lists and wasn't. Spengler shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, but he got his girlfriend to buy them for him.

But if we had a society that treated gun ownership responsibly, no one in their right mind would have sold these idiots or their mothers or girlfriends guns. But the crazy gun whack who thinks that we all need military grade weapons in case we have to take on the government some day screams if someone says, "Hey, maybe we should look into who has guns."

You have no right to an opinion on gun ownership because you have your mind made up about the issue.
You believe anyone who owns a gun is a fanatic.
And don't try to bullshit your way out this either.
You are a card carrying lib. You people hate guns and gun owners.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[

You keep saying that, but who knows what you have done since you received your CCP?

The cops if I committed a crime.

They don't have a system to keep that good of a check on everything. A cop has a limited job.

You are full of shit.
Once a person acquires a gun permit, their lives are forever scrutinized.
Every interaction with law enforcement that results in a record of the event is kept in a permanent database.
Especially if there is an arrest of ANY kind.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Mushroom's suggestion of licensing those who take firearms into the public sector is not all that bad an idea. It could be a simple written test to verify knowledge of basic laws and gun safety and involve a nominal fee. Like drivers' licenses, it could be renewed easily, but would not be renewed without a closer look if your name was on a 'no gun' list due to mental problems or whatever. And of course the license could be revoked if somebody was careless or endangered others with a firearm or committed a crime with a firearm.

Perhaps a more stringent background check and qualification process could be required to be licensed for automatic weapons just as an additional layer of proficiency is required for people to get a Class C driver's license.

I would suggest that the license should be good for ten years or so like a Passport though. It should not be a burden to get. And would be fully renewable so long as there had been no serious infractions . And no license would be necessary if you did not take your weapons into public places any more than you are required to have a drivers' license if you drive your vehicle only on your own property.

And agreed, the license should require no disclosure of any kind of whatever weapons you own just as a driver's license requires no disclosure of the kinds of vehicles you own.

I'm not so sure I would want a federal registry. A state registry, maybe. Depends on what they do with the information. If there is any use for example, tracking the movements of a gun owner, no way. It's none of anyone's business where I go, what route I take, whom I visit.
Socialists such as Obama are fearful of people they cannot control. That's why this administration is committed to any type of device or policy which permits government to track our movements, track our activities and leave an overall window on to the world of the private citizen.
One thing I find fascinating is when the libs were incensed over the alleged right to privacy for things THEY support, it's one story. Now that the issue has turned to something libs DO NOT like, they think to themselves, "privacy?..What privacy?"

 

[Dubya]

The cops if I committed a crime.

They don't have a system to keep that good of a check on everything. A cop has a limited job.

You are full of shit.
Once a person acquires a gun permit, their lives are forever scrutinized.
Every interaction with law enforcement that results in a record of the event is kept in a permanent database.
Especially if there is an arrest of ANY kind.

That doesn't mean the cops are rounding up carry permits. Dumbass thinks that piece of paper should be good enough to get him any gun, no questions asked and no background check.

 

[PaulS1950]

Anyone with a concealed carry permit is in the police database. If they pull you over for speeding their computer tells them that you have a CCP. A lot of times they will not reveal that they know but I have been asked if I was carrying a gun while driving home from a party late at night. They were checking for drunk drivers but as soon as he processed my license plate he knew that I could be carrying a legal gun. If I was drunk it could mean the loss of that privalege. I don't drink like that and it is unlawful to carry in a bar in this state. I have never been arrested for DUI and I never will be. I would rather get a ride home if it has been less than two hours since my last drink. (and less than two house for each drink)
Having a CCP carries with it a responsibility to be cognitive of your own condition and of those around you. It is not a license to be stupid or a license to show off. Nobody knows when I carry - my friends assume I always carry. In the privacy of my home I don't bother to conceal it but in public nobody needs to know.

Actually, if you have a permit in my state there is no background check and no waiting period. The permit is proof that you have already gone through the background check and passed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But the argument JoeB seems to be making, that the President seems to be making, that other pro more gun control people seem to be making, is that taking my gun will fix the problem.

Lets focus on the criminal for a change instead of thinking that more controls on responsible, law abiding citizens is the way to accomplish something.

The thing is, the criminal is only a part of the problem. Most gun deaths are sucides, domestic murders and accidents...

Lanza, Holmes, Loughner all had clean criminal records before they went on their shooting sprees. Cho (the VA Tech shooter) should have been on watch lists and wasn't. Spengler shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, but he got his girlfriend to buy them for him.

But if we had a society that treated gun ownership responsibly, no one in their right mind would have sold these idiots or their mothers or girlfriends guns. But the crazy gun whack who thinks that we all need military grade weapons in case we have to take on the government some day screams if someone says, "Hey, maybe we should look into who has guns."

You have no right to an opinion on gun ownership because you have your mind made up about the issue.
You believe anyone who owns a gun is a fanatic.
And don't try to bullshit your way out this either.
You are a card carrying lib. You people hate guns and gun owners.

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Millions of ‘liberals’ own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, own them for self-defense. Millions of ‘liberals’ support current Second Amendment jurisprudence and consider it settled law.

And Joe has every right to express his opinion concerning guns, as to have an opinion on an issue usually means someone has indeed made up his mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

Mushroom's suggestion of licensing those who take firearms into the public sector is not all that bad an idea. It could be a simple written test to verify knowledge of basic laws and gun safety and involve a nominal fee. Like drivers' licenses, it could be renewed easily, but would not be renewed without a closer look if your name was on a 'no gun' list due to mental problems or whatever. And of course the license could be revoked if somebody was careless or endangered others with a firearm or committed a crime with a firearm.

Perhaps a more stringent background check and qualification process could be required to be licensed for automatic weapons just as an additional layer of proficiency is required for people to get a Class C driver's license.

I would suggest that the license should be good for ten years or so like a Passport though. It should not be a burden to get. And would be fully renewable so long as there had been no serious infractions . And no license would be necessary if you did not take your weapons into public places any more than you are required to have a drivers' license if you drive your vehicle only on your own property.

And agreed, the license should require no disclosure of any kind of whatever weapons you own just as a driver's license requires no disclosure of the kinds of vehicles you own.

I'm not so sure I would want a federal registry. A state registry, maybe. Depends on what they do with the information. If there is any use for example, tracking the movements of a gun owner, no way. It's none of anyone's business where I go, what route I take, whom I visit.
Socialists such as Obama are fearful of people they cannot control. That's why this administration is committed to any type of device or policy which permits government to track our movements, track our activities and leave an overall window on to the world of the private citizen.
One thing I find fascinating is when the libs were incensed over the alleged right to privacy for things THEY support, it's one story. Now that the issue has turned to something libs DO NOT like, they think to themselves, "privacy?..What privacy?"

I don't want a federal or state registry of guns. Nor would I want the feds issuing a license for public use of guns. That should absolutely be a state function only. I don't want more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. But I do see licensing as a reasonable means of improving public safety without taking away our Second Amendment rights.

Most likely though it wouldn't accomplish much more than just be a nuisance both for those issuing the licenses and those applying for them. I'm just looking for solutions here that all sides can be comfortable with and that won't violate our Constitutional rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Mushroom's suggestion of licensing those who take firearms into the public sector is not all that bad an idea. It could be a simple written test to verify knowledge of basic laws and gun safety and involve a nominal fee. Like drivers' licenses, it could be renewed easily, but would not be renewed without a closer look if your name was on a 'no gun' list due to mental problems or whatever. And of course the license could be revoked if somebody was careless or endangered others with a firearm or committed a crime with a firearm.

Perhaps a more stringent background check and qualification process could be required to be licensed for automatic weapons just as an additional layer of proficiency is required for people to get a Class C driver's license.

I would suggest that the license should be good for ten years or so like a Passport though. It should not be a burden to get. And would be fully renewable so long as there had been no serious infractions . And no license would be necessary if you did not take your weapons into public places any more than you are required to have a drivers' license if you drive your vehicle only on your own property.

And agreed, the license should require no disclosure of any kind of whatever weapons you own just as a driver's license requires no disclosure of the kinds of vehicles you own.

I'm not so sure I would want a federal registry. A state registry, maybe. Depends on what they do with the information. If there is any use for example, tracking the movements of a gun owner, no way. It's none of anyone's business where I go, what route I take, whom I visit.
Socialists such as Obama are fearful of people they cannot control. That's why this administration is committed to any type of device or policy which permits government to track our movements, track our activities and leave an overall window on to the world of the private citizen.
One thing I find fascinating is when the libs were incensed over the alleged right to privacy for things THEY support, it's one story. Now that the issue has turned to something libs DO NOT like, they think to themselves, "privacy?..What privacy?"

There should be no ‘registry’ at all, Federal or state level; such a requirement would manifest an undue burden to exercising one’s Second Amendment rights, is unwarranted as there is no evidence such a policy would indeed result in less gun violence, and has possible due process issues as it presumes all gun owners are potential criminals.

If the state has evidence a potential gun owner should not own a gun, bring such evidence to the buyer’s attention and give him an opportunity to challenge the evidence.

Otherwise, the rest of your post starting with the second paragraph is idiocy.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Hey Dubya.

Your hoax picture of W holding the telephone the wrong way

is no better than the hoax picture of Pres. Obama holding his phone the wrong way.

I note it just in case you are one of the libs who values any hint of honesty in such matters.

Don't mention it. My pleasure.

 

[Mushroom]

I would suggest that the license should be good for ten years or so like a Passport though. It should not be a burden to get. And would be fully renewable so long as there had been no serious infractions . And no license would be necessary if you did not take your weapons into public places any more than you are required to have a drivers' license if you drive your vehicle only on your own property.

And agreed, the license should require no disclosure of any kind of whatever weapons you own just as a driver's license requires no disclosure of the kinds of vehicles you own.

Actually, I think this licensing should be a pre-requisite for owning any firearms. And renewed every 2-3 years, not every 10. With background checks done every time.

Part of the problem of the system we have now is that nobody is ever re-checked. If I get arrested for an assault, nobody checks to see if I have any firearms. If I am convicted of domestic violence, the system simply relies upon me to turn over my own firearms, nobody actually enforces anything like that.

And if somebody is psychotic, it is just assumed they would say so on a Gun Purchase form. With only the lightest of checks done now, to me that is a crime. I think owning a gun should be as serious of a responsibility as owning a vehicle.

But nobody take me for a "registration" zealot. I am against registration of individual weapons, it is nobodies business but my own how many weapons I have, and of what kind (as long as they are legal). Just as it is nobodies business how many cars I have, or of what kind.

To me, the "license" should simply be part of a stronger system to verify the background and mental status of gun owners, nothing more. If you want a CC, follow the local laws and apply for one.