Gun License vs Driving License

WhatI don’t understand about the “right to bear arms” is that there is no real test to pass before you can acquire such rights (I know you fill in a few yes or no answers, but barely anything at all). Take driving a car. One must be of a certain age, have a certain amount of training, attend drug and alcohol class and pass an eye exam. We must register our car, have our emissions checked and pay a hefty tax for the right to own and operate our vehicle. I think it is fair to say that we need to drive more than we need to shoot. We understand thatwreck lesss driving can lead to death, so we make acquiring a license and a car a long and well-documented process. Whywouldn’t we figure the same with guns? Why do we have such an attitude of “I want my gun now, no questions asked in every variety (beyond the self defense and hunting sort)"? If there was merely a test to pass (with a psychological portion) and time for a real background check and training, fine.i get it... there would still be some crime that youcouldn't stopp, but much that you could. In Michigan and Texas a blind man has the right to own a gun (and in Michigan the blind person isn’t even required to go hunting with a person who can see). That is insane to me.


I personallydon'tt like guns or killing, but if we have to have them shouldn't their be not just safer, but sane laws?

You only need a years long process to do it.

Have fun.

but certainly it can be a smarter process.

Blind people being able to buy guns....please, give me break.

It is certainly no infringement on a person's "right" to bear arms, by having all weapons licensed. It's just plain common sense. How could anyone rationally argue against that?

That's why we have those rights defined. In fact the big argument was should the Billof Rights even be put in, but then someone thought that if you don't define them then one day people without common sense would not recognize them.

Actually it is an infringement, see "due process."

What do you not understand about "well regulated"? It is written in the Constitution that the second amendment is to be "well regulated" and I would think licensing would be just a small part of that regulation. In fact the second amendment is the only amendment that specifically states it must be "well regulated"..

Does not mean what you think it means. Do a little homework and you will see.

What does it mean?

Here's a hint though to help out. It meant how something functions, not how it was controlled. In fact it still maintains this meaning to some extent.

The whole 2nd amendment is about keeping and bearing arms. It is not about how a militia should be regulated as the NRA has tried to make it out to be. It is about how arms are to be "well regulated" and specifically within a militia. The context of the amendment is about guns and not militias. No other amendment suggest such regulation. It is a given that militias and any Armed services are to be regulated, that is not what this amendment is about. It is about regulating arms..You need to do some reading as virtually every court until very recently has ruled in this manner.

YOu are correct in that "well regulated" has nothing to do with how a militia should be regulated. In fact it is not even close to the meaning.

No other amendment suggest such regulation, and neither does this one because "well regulated" has NOTHING to do with control or regulation in its context.

All guns in the hands of private citizensa are in the hands of the militia according to the US Code. "Armed Forces" and "militia" are two VERY different things in the US Code.

and you need a conceal carry permit to carry a gun in public. You don't need a license or a registered car to drive on your own private property. Besides, only one of these is protected by the bill of rights.

1. Cars are more dangerous than guns.

2. People are shitty drivers even with the licensing.

3. I think what you meant to write was:
"I personally don't like guns or killing. If we must have them shouldn't laws be not only safer than they are, but also sane?"
Sorry, but that last sentence is a mess.

It was one of the best classes I've ever taken. The three men who taught it were extremely respectful of guns & took it very seriously. There was no frivolity or macho crap. One of the instructors told us that he trusted his 16 year old with gun more than he trusted him with a car. "He's been shooting since he was 7 & has immense respect for guns. I'm having a hard time instilling that same level of respect for driving!" When I remember how I drove when I was a teen I'm surprised I survived.

Those who intend to break the laws aren't real good about following the law. More regulation is not the answer. Tougher penalties, IMO, are the answer. You commit a crime using a gun, you're in for life without parole, no exceptions! Throw in a mandatory death sentence if they kill someone. That's about the best you can do.

The criminal killed some people and then he was killed. Is that the way the system is supposed to work? Or, should we try for something better?

Barring CCW holders from carrying wherever they want is not the way to do things.

And its OK for, say, certifiably insane people to buy hand guns (and use them as they see fit) because eventually, they'll run into other people who have guns and after some number of such encounters, they'll be killed? That's the way it should work? And you don't believe we could come up with something better than that?

I served in a trial involving gun purchases. While I'm strongly in favor of gun control laws...especially involving automatic weapons that serve no purpose other than to kill people...I had to vote against convicting a gun dealer based on how vague the laws were. While I abhored what the guy did, he didn't break laws...in fact, he knew them better than his accusers and used them to his advantage.

For example...under state laws, one could give a "gift" of a handgun without it ever being reported to the State or Federal authorities. Thus one person could walk into a store...use their FOID card, get a gun and ammo...walk around the corner, give it to a friend as a "gift" and it was perfectly legal.

Many of the arguments about gun control become scrambled when you have a situation like this, because, as you state, someone hellbent on this kind of mayhem isn't going to care about laws. The laws that make the guns and ammo so easily available and contorted definitions of the Second Ammendment just inflame further misunderstandings.

Cheers...

Sarah Brady also used a "strawman" purchase to gift a rifle to her son. But oh wait, she knows him so it is okay for her to do it.

Call it a "semi-automatic"...play with words and strawmen...fact is 32 people were gunned down with one a lethal, legal and easy to obtain weapon. The killer appears to have easily passed a background check that enabled him to purchase this weapon along with enough ammo to put at least 3 bullets in each person he shot. Thanks to allowing the assualt weapons ban to lapse, the clips in his gun were "supersized"...the sole purpose was to increase the weapon's leathal power.

The strawman here is comparing those who use a shotgun or single-shot pistol or have a gun hidden for protection...to use it in a defensive manner vs. someone intent on using it in an offensive one. I just saw the President of Gun Owners of America on C-SPAN spreading this manure. There is no reason a gun like a Glock or Tech 9 exists other than for offensive killing purposes.

Okay, so he would have had to change MAGAZINES more often. Fact of the matter is, it would NOT have made a difference. The students in the room that he did the most damage in lined up to be shot.

You are posting the strawman rather than addressing him you are addressing the gun.

Single shot pistols to protect yourself hah. You should see the people that continue to be a threat after being shot multiple times, even with shotguns.

How did a Tech 9 get thrown in here?

Handguns are defensive in nature.

I'll gladly discuss issues involving the Second Ammendment and whether a gun is offensive or defensive, but that diverts from my point and that's not "the gun" as much as how easy it was for the shooter to get such a leathal weapon. The person was troubled and I can agree that if he was hellbent on taking vengence on society in a brutal fashion he would have found a way to do it...and it appears he tried by setting fires. However, the gun, the ammo, the fact he could get the gun as easily as he did made it far more lethal than had he used just a .22 or a knife or used other means in this tragedy...some may have died, but not on the this scale.

I don't argue with those who feel the belief a gun gives them safety. A vast majority of these people are responsible about their weapons. I've engaged many on this issue for a long time and have come to an understanding of their many positions and concerns...and many agree with me on the concept of some sort of licensing of owners to show they know how to properly shoot and store a weapon. However, we also have arcane laws (I've posted on that) along with a poltical culture that have been abused and need either revision or real enforcement...another position many gun owners I know also agree on.

Right now my focus is on the needless loss of life here...and the many factors that led to this incident. It's not only "the gun", it's much more "the culture".

The question should be, should he have been able to buy the gun with the laws in place. He was a troubled man and demonstrated troubling actions. Seems like only one professor tried to take responsibility and help him.

I'll look for you other posts abou the arcane laws to try to get a better understanding of where you are going. Perhaps we do agree somewhat.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need to find out how this killer was able to show so many red flags...especially the setting of the fires...and still able to slip through the system to amass his arsenal. The guns was the ends to the means, not the cause...and this always gets so muddled when such an emotional episode occurs.

I've witnessed how contradictory laws and jurisdictions and political agendas are a major source of gun problems in this country. There needs to be a rational dialogue on the issue where those who own firearms and do so responsbly aren't cast in the same lots with mass murderers...yet those are strong supporters of gun rights can see a proportionality in the needs of self-defense ve. a gun culture that has abused the laws and attempt to polarize people to profit...under the guise of the right to bear arms.

Cheers to you and maybe we can carry on this dialogue in the future.

:toast:

assumptions here. To my knowledge there has not been a report as to the capacity of the clips used. I would not call a 15 round clip "super sized" and would be surprised if they are even that big. It is a very simple task to reload a Glock 9mm if one is familiar with the gun, so the number of shots fired is most likely a result of the number of clips he had and not the capacity of those clips. I could literally eject and empty clip and replace it with a fully loaded on in less than 5 seconds.

The truth is that this is a rarity, a gun legally purchased used by the legal purchaser to commit an intentional violent crime. This is the exception and not the rule. Most violent crimes involve weapons that were illegally obtained.

That's 3 x 60...180 bullets. Just on the amount of firepower, can you tell me a .22 would have inflicted half that damage? I've heard reports that he had expanded clips...33 rounds...but even if it's 15 or 10...the reports from witnesses are he appeared to be very experienced with the gun and quickly was reloading. I'm sure we'll get more specifics on the balistics in the days ahead.

Honesty, I was expecting the guns to have been bought on the black market and was surprised that he bought them legally. Yet, he filed off the serials so there appears to be intent here to try to either make it appear the gun was hot. This truly is the exception and please don't think I'm lumping this in with the vast majority of responsible gun owners who abhor these murders for all the right reasons.

I also think this killer isn't a criminal in the fact his ultimate act...his final statement...was to kill himself. Few criminals involved in violent crime have a death wish for themselves in that manner.

Cheers...

:hi:

Never bring a knife to a knife fight - bring a gun. So why bring a self-limited gun to a fight for survival? Its a compromise anyway as one is REactive in defense, and limited by convenience. You WANT TO win or you are dead!!! Your life is on the line - chose overwhelming firepower in acaliber that you can shoot well.

This morning I heard several stories attempting to equate this mass murder with the guy who has the gun under the bed and shoots the guy trying to break in at 3am. To me these are apples and oranges. Yes...if you know you are in a dangerous situation you want to make sure you are as properly armed as possible. I encounter people who have to drive into rough neighborhoods in the city and carry guns...and I can very much understand why. These people know how to use the weapons and I pity anyone who try to mess with them. However, I don't feel this should be the environment my son faces when he heads off to class every day.

there to defend them - a front door with metal detectors, but an open campus (HS)...it's like all the sheep locked in a pen with no sheepdogs.

p.s. my B-I-L is a deputy chief in local LE - went to the National Acacdemy at Quantaco last fall - #1 terrorist threat/target? School grounds. They are taking it seriously - but is it enough?

Good luck to you and yours my friend - STAY SAFE!

Even a gun free school zone.

I have no problem with guns only with killing

We have the right to bear arms for the purpose of defending the country just like it says in the constitution. But the nra's of the country spend millions to obfuscate the founding fathers intent. Was the shooter at VT defending the country? NO. Was he armed with a dangerous weapon for criminal purposes? Yes. Is the nra complicit in his actions? Yes. Will they take responsibility? No fucking way.

As a start, learn what it means in the US Code.

but it pisses me off to blindness that assholes who always blather on about strictly interpreting the constitution intentionally obfuscate the second amendment. I suggest we do away with it and replace it with something more meaningful to the 21st century but until we do, a strict interpretation of the constitution would make the nra irrelevant; ergo their actions to ensure that does not happen.

Let me guess......

Incredibly easy to figure out. Was the VT shooter protected by the second amendment? Only if the second amendment is considered "ambiguous" which it isn't.

Who does it protect?

You mean how others intrepet it? I'm not interpreting or analyzing it or spinning it. I'm reading it verbatim.

Was he protecting his family?
Was he protecting the nation from attack?

The second amendment is not strictly enforced. I suggest getting rid of it and making it 21st century user friendly.

Unfortunately that is NOT the case. Instead of going by what it says quite plainly, they try to make it mean what THEY want it to mean, so they can infringe on the Right of the People, and so we have the NRA...

and WHY that it is required i.e. "Necessary" - the State Militias were to help the govt keep the constitutional guarantee to the States and the people. "Republican form of govt", suppress insurrections, repel invasions, execute the laws". Who better to enforce & protect their freedoms then the people themselves - well armed and well trained?

I completely agree with your explaination, but we cannot just hand out guns to every citizen without regulation or training. And the current laws just dont work in that respect.

It is NOT the same thing as "Armed Forces" in the US Code.

consolidate their power by creation of the NG.

The individual Right still remains, even though the "need" for a true militia has been ignored, so people are left to their own.

1) To defend the country from invasion
2) To defend from tyranny taking the country over from within
3) To protect your family

See the protections offered to States at that time about the right to keep and near arms for a clue.

Oh yeah almost forgot. PERIOD.

AND IF that was THE intent, why did the 1st Senate REFUSE to add "for the common defense" at the end of the restrictive clause protecting the right of the people? THAT would have changed the meaning, but they didn't, so the right remains personal and indivdual, as intended.

Therefore, we do have that right.

That's the fundamental difference. I'm not against licensing gun owners per se, but the concept has to change to do so.

Ban the semi automatics....
Ban the hand guns....
Ban as much as you can.

If you want a gun it should be single shot only. Bolt action. Preferably limited to small calibre.

There. You've got your precious right to bear arms.

The arms the constitution talks about are those from the 1770s so why not restrict it to close to that? Slow rate of fire, lousy range and user unfriendly.

I cant get over how other countries constitutions talk about the right to security, the right to education, the right to shelter,
the right to be treated decently.

Yet the US constitution, supposedly so great, has the right to carry a leathal weapon in it.

There's ya problem right there kiddies. Spot the lack of balance!

Oh, so you dont want to put in realistic gun control??? Ok, we will be back here in 3 years time with a similar event, with similar results for exactly the same reason. This particular event was completely preventable. If that man could not have bought those pistols so easily it is highly unlikely this would have happened as it did.
Period.

Ban television
Ban Newpapers
Ban the Internet

The Free speech the Constitution talks about is that from the 1770's.......

Get the drift?

You are all for leaving it as it is and watching more people die????

Brilliant mate, your on a winner their.... I wish you well.

Why are people so dumb they cannot see the cause and affect between a semi automatic weapon and a massacre?

Thick as 2 bricks...

You would leave the access to media as is?

.......Keep going.

We must register our car, have our emissions checked and pay a hefty tax for the right to own and operate our vehicle.

You have to strike the words "own and" for your sentence to be accurate. You need a license to operate a car (on public roads, not to put too fine a point on it). You do not need a license to own a car.

The whole analogy breaks down there.

You can purchase a car, drive it only on private property (race track or your own place), transport it to and from such property on a trailer, and you don't need a license or registration.

That's exactly the way it is with guns; you can buy guns and possess them on your own property, or operate them at a shooting range, without a license, but to carry one in public, you DO have to have a license in all but a couple states.

To obtain a carry license here in NC, you have to apply in person at your local law enforcement office, pass a thorough Federal and state background check, have your prints run by the FBI, pass a mental health records check, attend and pass a training class, pass a written test on NC self-defense law, AND demonstrate proficiency with a handgun on a shooting range. Which is more restrictive than getting a NC driver's license.

Vermont and Alaska are the only two states that do not require carry licenses in order to carry a concealed firearm, so your criticism would be true only for those two states.