Gun Control -- When You Elect Me King

Here's a sure-fire argument starter.

If I got to write the gun-control laws, here's what you'd get:

To Purchase or Possess Any Firearm:

Individual Licensing
18 Years or Age*
Certificate of Firearm Safety Course
Certificate of Insurance (min. $50,000 liablity for acts committed by firearm own by insured)**
Interview/Screening by Local Law Enforcement
Criminal Background Check by Local Law Enforcement
Mental Health Check by Local Law Enforcement***
License renewable every three years
Seven-Day maxmium waiting period for processing

*Under 18 possession allowed under adult supervision (hunting exception)
**Liability waived upon official notification that firearm has been sold, disposed of, or stolen
***Applicant waives HIPAA rights to privacy upon applying for firearm license.

Registration (At Time Of Purchase)
Purchase Information included in national database
Ballistic fingerprinting for all firearms prior to market (at time of manufacture)
One firearm purchase per month (exceptions for certain long guns)
Private/Gun Show purchases included in national database

Other
CCW Permits with reasonable cause (i.e. high-risk occupation or imminent threat)
Seven-Day waiting period waived for immininent threat (e.g., restraining orders)
High-Volume magazines (i.e, more than 7 rounds) banned.
Fully automatic weapons (same restrictions as current)
.50 caliber weapons (same treatment as fully automatic)

Note: These requirements would be incumbent upon any firearm purchase, new or used, regardless of individual seller. For example. any individual purchasing a firearm would have to show a valid firearms license (including purchases at gun shows) and any purchase would have to be documented and registered with a national database.

From what I understand, local law enforcement did have a history with the shooter, but no arrest record. That's why the face-to-face screening with local law enforcement is important. Local cops may know something abot the purchaser that wouldn't show up in any database.

Anyway, that's what I'd do.

Edited for clarity

We are still in America....right???

Yep. Still in America.

I'd require that ALL guns be kept at the local police station. You want to carry a gun? Go to the police station, prove you're not drunk or otherwise impaired, sign a form and get your f##king gun.

Not in the U.S., of course, but in some country I believe that have licensed gun clubs where firearms are securely stored. You can either shoot at their target range of check them out if you're going hunting. But I may be hallucinating. In any case, I do believe that a person should have a right to protect himself and possess a firearm (if that's what you want to do). Having the gun several miles away isn't much protection.

Writing this reminds me that I forgot all about "safe storage" regulations. Lock 'em up, kids! Especially if you have kids!

I would think that would be an enormous pain in the ass (sorry, arse) to have to drive somewhere to pick up your rifle before going hunting.

:thumbsup:

:popcorn:

I imagine that both are equally likely.

...and don't bogart the popcorn.

here, have some on me, oh, King, Sir.

:popcorn:

I've always wondered about that. A King-Sized candy bar has, what, any extra ounce on chocolate?

When I'm King, I'm getting a Snickers Bar the size of a fucking canoe...

I believe that every American has the right to bear arms. What is so wrong about having to prove that you are competent to own one? You have to take a class and pass a test to drive a car...

It will never happen, unfortunately. And the truth is that anyone who wants to procure a weapon and is denied through legal channels has a huge black market for such commodities, however, in this case, it may have helped.

I will stand behind you on this one....

For sane, law-abiding gun owners, this is not much of an inconvenience. Once every three years, you schedule a fifteen-minute appointment at the local police or sheriff's office. You fill out a form and you go home.

Some gun owners (even law-abiding ones) are profoundly paranoid about providing any information about their guns to law enforcement. I'm not one of them. Maybe because I've personally known lots of cops in my life, like my former next door neighbor, I have no problem with the police knowing how many firearms I own.

for legitimate and law-abiding reasons should have no problem filling out a damned form and talking to someone for a few minutes once in a while.

... should have no problem if the government just wants to check their phone calls and e-mails once in a while because they are law abiding, or search their house.

What's the difference?

Sorry I have a problem putting all the power in the hands of the govenrment. Besides, the irony is that the second amendment was put there to make sure neither you nor anyone else could be elected King.

is that you can't rob a liquor store by brandishing an e-mail. I tried once. Doesn't work. :shrug:

When there is a compelling public interest in violating your right to privacy, the government can do just that. If you are a suspect in a criminal investigation, the government indeed has a right to tap your phone and read your e-mail and search your house. My argument here would be that given the number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms every year, their is a complelling public interest in regulating the sale of firearms.

And there's really no "power" being invested in the government in this case. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you still have the right to possess a firearm; you're simply filling out a form, similar to the one you filled out when you got your library card.

This is the government. They like forms.

Do you really want Bob who runs the gun shop to know that you take Viagra?

nt

Their guns are their substitute for viagra.

Anybody got a magazine?

Sex Thread and a Gun Thread! Doublt Bonus!!

Yikes!

Reread what I posted. The mental health check is done by law enforcement ONLY. And in applying for the license you're giving law enforcement the right to check your mental health records, not your entire medical record. If you have no history of treatment for mental health disorders, the secret of your Viagra is safe.

You would have to create a database that mental health officials have to send all patient information to.

Electronic Health Records are getting more portable every day. There are currently systems that allow you to access your medications from anywhere in the world (with internet access). A system isn't in place now, but it can be.

Talk about your delusions...

I had a 6-week training course with a state-administered examination, once I passed I had to go to my local police station (not just any one, but one nearest to my residence), interview with an officer there, then I was photographed & fingerprinted. Then I waited two weeks before I got the license card.

That's when I got my license to sell insurance.

When I got my pistol permit, all I had to do was sign the application form.

I think the interview is the key. Like I said, the locals know stuff about you that might not be part of a criminal record.

Seems pretty consistent with your views on the rest of the constitution.

The rest of them are fine. Except the Third. What hell is up with that one. Do we really need a constitutional amendment to say that the government can't quarter troops in my house during peacetime?

And, actually, I'd prefer to be God.

We better keep it

Yeah, we should probably keep it.

And, if so, will that be a hair test or a urinalysis?

Do veterans get any different (special) treatment since they're already trained?

And finally: If I buy a black market gun and keep it in my house, who will know?

Drug Test: Intriguing idea, but no. If you're a recreational pot-smoker, I don't see any reason to deny your right to own a gun. If you're a full-blown crackhead, chances are you'd fail the criminal background check.

Veterans: I think we can safely say that any veteran has at least the minimum skills to handle a firearm -- and that includes my cousin in the JAG Corps.

Black Market: Nobody. But you'd be a criminal subject to full prosecution (and potentially loss of your legitimate gun rights), so don't do it!

Now you have got all the law abiding gun owners all checked out. Now, what about those who intend to break the law? Are they going to follow your guidelines? Not hardly. They will steal a gun or use something else and you have not accomplished a thing except more regulation, more time for police to spend in an office instead of being out on the street.

Sorry, we've had 6 yrs with a king, I'm ready for a change!

For starters, I can pronounce "Nu-Cle-Ar"

What we will have accomplished is to force criminals and the mentally unstable to go to other venues to obtain guns. Legitimate Gun Shops (like the kind used by the VT shooter) are off-limits. Gun Shows and Privates Sales (from law-abiding citizens, at least) are no longer avaiable. All that's left is the black market.

When you force crooks and nuts to purchase their guns from fewer venues, you make it much easier for law enforcement to choke off their access to firearms. Bust one or two black market gun dealers in any jurisdiction, and you've put a significant dent in the numbers of guns circulating among the criminal class.

As much as I loathe the cars:guns comparison, this much is relevant. Traffic laws don't prevent auto accidents, but that's no reason to not have them.

Completely.


Flame away.

:pals:

And I'll freely admit that no amount of regulation (even a total ban) is going to keep guns out of the hands of a committed criminal. But that doesn't mean that we have to make it easy for them, either. My problem with a total ban is that it won't solve the problem of a violent society, and it would punish people (like me) who own guns responsibly.

Perhaps the bigger picture, beyond gun regulation, is to consider why our society is so violent in the first place. Canada has gun laws only slightly more restrictive than our own, yet their rates of firearm violence are far lower than ours. It is something in the Molson's? What is it about our culture that causes people to shoot each other so often?

As far as the interview by cops and showing a need for the carry-license, that's pretty much how it's run in urban California and Chicago. As a result, licenses to carry are almost exclusively awarded to retired cops, politicos, and the well-connected (like movie stars). For an ordinary citizen to get a license to carry, it's a minor miracle in those places.

As King, you could just award them to your faithful barons, and let the serfs eat cake. It's good to be King!

:rofl:

JustABozoOnThisBus, you are hereby named Archduke of Detroit!

To your point, I've never heard serious complaints from Chicago -- other than from the "I want unlimited rights" crowd. But certainly CCW should be for anybody who can show reasonable cause (delivery drivers, convenience store clerks, cabbies, or anybody whose job places them at high risk).

I'm going to have to go shopping for some officious bling!

As far as I know, the only people who can carry concealed pistols in Chicago are cops, retired cops, and aldermen. And the mayor is trying to take them from retired cops. Aldermen are untouchable.

They just bypassed all your hard worked permits, registrations and licensing.

And you have no idea how much really good porn I had to wade through to get this picture!

Don't make me do it again!! And again!!

Charles Whitman was never taken into custody.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were never put in cuffs.
Georges Jo Hennard was never put in cuffs.

I'm probably a better person for it.

I have a fairly significant arsenal, yet they are locked in a cabinet (unloaded) and have been for the past 3 years- I don't have the time or much inclination to go shooting. Many of these were handed down to me from my grandfather and great-grandfather. At least two would be considered "high-volume" by your standards, one of which is a rare .22 rifle left to me by my grandfather (I promise you that nobody will be confiscating it from me).

Don't get me wrong- I really don't have anything against the idea of a license to purchase. If I ever decide to buy another, I'd have no problem with jumping through any hoops. But what worries me about the concept is weapons that are already in existence. I'm sure there are cold trails with more than half of my collection, and I'll be damned if some government agency should have the right to confiscate one of my heirlooms because of a over-reaching law.

Peace- Out!

:hippie:

I can think of no reason why a gun already in somebody's collection could possibly be taken, assuming that the owner passed licensing and that the gun wasn't stolen. I wouldn't even envision any registration at all for guns already in your possession (9/10ths or the law and all that). Registration would only occur when (and if) you decided to sell one to a third party -- and even then it wouldn't effect you as the seller.

Present and future.

I prefer not to allow some bureaucrat make arbitrary decisions that affect my civil rights, so you won't be getting my vote.

And, yes, I do place a lot of faith in the men and women who put their lives in danger on a daily basis. They are the ones who are going to be cleaning up the mess if it turns out I'm a loner and (gasp) an English Major looking to hurt people. Somebody's got to protect us from these imambic pentameter rhyming wingnuts!

Jeff in Milwaukee, M.A. English, 1986

Despite your plan all violence won't end.

While it may seem that ruling would be fun,
One day you'll see you haven't really won.

I must leave now and join the rising sun,
Heed this good man, you'll never take MY gun.

:hi:

Keep your gun.

What rhymes with massacre?

You have to run so fast your ass will blur.

:shrug:

Unfortunately, my ass is a blur even when I'm standing still.

I think the magazine ban is out of place though, and the barrel fingerprinting is pretty much useless.

I think in the long run though, it wouldn't have affected Monday very much. The kid was already getting mental health referrals, and he had a clean record. It is likely that he would have been able to get the gun anyway.

But what I've read says that he was interviewed by local law enforcement and even spent a night or two in some kind of facility -- mental health or local jail? I don't know. So it's unclear if anything I've suggested would have stopped him.

But you can't create a law to stop the actions of a single, deranged loner. While what happened Monday is certainly terrifying, the slow bleed of daily, largely unreported, gun crime is far worse. I don't have the latest statistics, but I believe there's something on the order of 8,000 deaths each year. And that doesn't take into account the robberies and rapes that are facilitated by guns.

As to magazines, a slightly larger number would be OK. But I see no earthly need for a 50-round magazine. I go deer hunting every year with three rounds in my rifle and three extras in my coat pocket. On the day it takes me fifty shorts to drop a whitetail, I'll take up another hobby.

Ballistic fingerprinting? If it really doesn't add to the equation, then I'm good with dropping.

Even Kings can listen to reason.

15-round carbines have been on the civilian market since the early 1860's, and 30-rounders since the early 1900's.

I hate to say this, but I don't think I could elect you king... :P



No, that's not a real AK-47 (possession of a real one without Federal permission is a 10-year felony).

Not to get O/T here. But isn't putting a holographic sight on an AK sort of like gold-plating a turd? :rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(BTW, did you ever read the original "Mall Ninja" spoof thread by Gecko45 on Glocktalk or wherever? Funny stuff...)

the rifle is capable of about 2.5 MOA, but is a challenge to shoot that well because of the short sight radius, b/c the rear sight is way the heck forward on the receiver to clear the dust cover. The sights are also set too low for bespectacled shooters like me (can't shoot worth a darn when you're looking out the corner of your glasses).

The Kobra puts the line of sight up higher, and the reticle is focused at infinity. It makes a huge difference.

Besides, physics geek that I am, why use irons if I can have a HUD? :P

I might consider thinking about it.

I really love the 7 round magazine although I would personally prefer 5 round max. I'd also implement a tax on ammunition sales to fund healthcare costs, and possibly a gun buyback program. Once people begin to feel safer, they may not feel the need to keep an arsenal, then they can turn their weapons back in and get them out of circulation.


Caveat: I am firmly anti-gun, but in the interest of compromising with other Dems that disagree, am willing to allow some less than draconian measures.

I think guns unnecessarily divide Democrats. I grew up in a rural area where guns were as common as garden rakes. Every working class Joe, who ought to be voting Democratic, owns a gun. But overly-strict guns laws (and I'll leave it up to some else to define that) lure them over to the dark side where they're voting to lose their jobs but keep their guns. Good luck affording ammo.

if you ban semi-automatics rifles and all pistols except for clubs and competition.

There is a direct link between massacres and semi-auto weapons of all types.

Wake up and see it guys.

How many bodies is your right to bear something to kill other people worth???? Cause thats what it comes down to.

Is THIS the kind of government you want for the next generation?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2811889&mesg_id=2811889

Cause that's what it comes down to, if you push what you have just suggested.

Can we make this a little more inflammatory?

I'd have a more thoughtful reply, but I'm not exactly sure that you're driving at.

The more gun owners get PERSONALLY affected. When politicians start tinkering with peoples' personal possessions, making it more of a hassle to get the things they want or worse, making them pay money or prove a "need" to keep things they bought legally, they start thinking that maybe those politicians are working against their interests.

When a party works against a voter's interests, that voter becomes less likely to support any candidate from that party regardless of the individual candidates' views.

My point is that there are a lot of voters in the middle who are not very loyal to one party or another. With the Republican and Democratic sides so evenly divided, we cannot as a party afford to alienate whole classes of voters.

Keep the GOP in power and you get long-term consequences like social conservatives on the Supreme Court.

Jeff, thank you for conducting this thread with good humor and no ill will toward those who disagree with you.

I think Democrats need to emphasize a policy with regard to guns that has reasonable restrictions of firearms -- and I don't think filling out a form is particularly restrictive -- but that also emphasizes stepped up law enforcement regarding violent felons. We could also emphasize the peripheral issues: People with good jobs are less likely to shoot each other. Kids in after-school programs are less likely to get accidently shot while playing with a parent's firearm. Effective community mental health programs get people who need help into treatment and out of the local gun store. I think if we sell this as a "package deal," it sounds less like knee-jerk gun-grabbing and more like part of a common sense approach to crime.

Most crime (generally not the lone wacko kind) can be attributed to poverty, lack of education, underemployment, lack of haelth care, etc.

In one of my other responses on this thread I wondered why a country like Canada, which has comparatively lax gun laws compared to the rest of the industrialized world, has dramatically lower rates of violent crime compared to the U.S. Perhaps the reason (and a reason why violent crime is so much lower in other countries) is that nearly every other industrialized nation has a far more extensive social safety net than we do.

Here's my bargain: We leave gun conrol as is, but we in exchange we get a living wage, universal health care, more funding for schools (including afterschool and summer programs), more funding for community policing and community mental health. I'm betting that we'd see a decrease in violent crime as least as large as anything you could possibly get from banning all firearms.

:toast:

I'd really like to see you prove the direct link between massacres and semi-auto weapons.

nt

And all of my mortars are registered :P

:hi:

Better?

You're already sliding down the slippery slope.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
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.

Surely reasonable people can agree that their kind deserve to die.

Sanjaya, at least...

Edit: I'm just joking about killing the annoying guy on American Idol (wink, wink).

I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the wars ..." :patriot:

But throw away the Bars?!

You will take away my cocktail when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Drunk drivers kill more people than handguns do. "70% of sexual assaults on college campuses involve alcohol"
It's poison for the human body and poison for the social body.

But I don't write the songs, just quote them.

"If I was king for just one day. I would give it all away ...

I was shooting for sophomoric drivel. OK. Whatever.

through the cracks - where would Cho fail on this - hopefully the mental health screening? But you know bureaucracies - they might see he'd never had treatment for mental health issues, for instance, and that would be enough to pass him.

You kids have been great! We actually had a discussion about guns that didn't degenerate into a flame war. See it can be done...

Nader in 2008!

Gotta go now...

:evilgrin: