The Great Gun Control Debate
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Infanteer said:
Seems to me that the natives of the day were one hell of a lot more reasonable than the crack heads and gangsta wannabees that we deal with now. I guess by your way of thinking we should then losen up the gun laws for law abiding citizens? Cool!
- Reaction score
- 9,742
- Points
- 1,260
Mikeg81 said:
Don't worry, I've done a fair amount of serious study on the Bill of Rights and American Constitutional history, but thanks for the lecture.
Bottom line remains that an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that sees room for some form of gun control (and I know we all believe in a modicum of control; ie - proper training and licensing) is just as valid as an interpretation that sees it as a carte blanche for buying M2's to secure your property.
Laws must be viewed in the context they were written up in and the farther from that context one travels, the more fudge room for interpretation. No law is really immutable, especially in a Common Law tradition.
zipperhead_cop said:
I don't know - crackheads haven't burned my crops in an attempt to drive my community off the land....
If I had my way any qualified and licenced citizen would be empowered to carry if he so chose. An armed society is a free (and polite) one....
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Infanteer said:
The key difference between common law and constitutional law (in my opinion, a real lawyer should step in here) is common law may be mutable with changing circumstances, but constitutional law is not. Certainly the Founding Fathers were very concerned with the idea that American liberty could become lost to clever demagogues and others who would steal liberty away, and deliberately wrote the constitution to limit powers and even allow for deadlocks as ambitious men contested for power amongst the various branches of the government.
They also recognized that even this might not work for all times and places; the idea of a militia of free men who could stand and fight against physical oppression was the ultimate backstop both then and now. It is hard to institute a Police State if people can literally shoot back at the police.
It can and should be debated if the Second Amendment is still valid and workable in today's environment, but to me, the idea of allowing free men (and women) the tools to maintain their own freedoms is still a valid one. The actual tools may change (laptop computers and Wi Fi routers are probably a greater threat to oppressors than rifles and handguns), but the basic principles are immutable.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Infanteer said:
Nice! I will make a point of not borrowing any blankets off you.
- Reaction score
- 9,742
- Points
- 1,260
Loachman said:
Okay, maybe we all don't believe in some form of licencing, but I submit that most find it a reasonable measure for the government to install on behalf of the rest of society. Just as I expect that someone operating a motor vehicle in public is vetted (by the government on my behalf) through a licensing process, I can make the same request of those who would carry a firearm into a public place. As a gun owner, I'll lump my gun licence in with other "evils" such as taxes and the NDP.
Infanteer said:
Perhaps "most" do, but they have put incredibly little logical thought or serious research into arriving at that conclusion. Requiring continuing government approval to own one's lawfully acquired property or go to jail is anything but "reasonable".
Infanteer said:
If I only needed a license to "operate" or "carry a firearm into a public place", I would have far less objection. This is not the same thing, though, by any stretch. Under the current legislation, I need a firearms licence merely to own my property lawfully. You can park your car in your driveway and cancel your driver's licence and vehicle registration, and that would be perfectly legal. And even if you drove it off of your property with no licence or valid registration, you would still incur no criminal record or jail term.
The federal government has no jurisdiction in such licensing other than to establish it within the Criminal Code. That is why the only sanctions for "violations" incur jail time and a criminal record. The current legislation has decreed that simple ownership of firearms to be a crime, unless one purchases the defence of a licence, ie government authority to commit a crime. Other legislation has been turfed by the Supreme Court on the basis of "purchasing a defence" in the past.
Establishment of a requirement to demonstrate competency prior to purchase of a firearm is not unreasonable, although this is nothing more than a CYA issue as the firearms accident rate is so low as to be statistically insignificant anyway. Provincial hunter licensing programmes and private shooting clubs have ensured that far beyond the current government course, which requires that not a single shot be fired on a range. This negligible accident rate is why the NFA and other groups can offer five million dollars worth of liability insurance for only $7.95 - yes, less than eight bucks. Passing a criminal background check prior to acquisition is not unreasonable either, although that has never been an obstacle to criminal acquisition of firearms.
The old FAC system satisfied both of the competency and background check aspects, and was far cheaper and far less intrusive or unreasonable - and just as useless in reality as the current system.
There is absolutely no crime-prevention or crime-solving benefit to society from either system, or from any other "gun control" system tried anywhere on this planet other than jailing real (not paper) criminals for a long, long time.
A violent thug in jail cannot shoot, stab, strangle, or beat anybody to death, or deal drugs to kids.
Law-abiding citizens who own firearms are an amazingly low threat to society, whether they have a certain piece of government-issued paper or not.
Try and read the Firearms Act. Try and make any sense of it.
- Reaction score
- 18,678
- Points
- 1,260
In Florida - all that is needed to buy a gun is a State DL, for handguns it needs to be a Fl DL with a 3 day wait (and NICS check) or immediate transfer if you have a valid FL CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon Permit) - since we are a "Shall Issue" state, all that is needed to get a CCW is a DL, (FL DL's are not issued to non-residents) and proof of firearm competancy - which is either the State Course and Shoot, or Mil or LE experience (DD214 or CF MPRR), with a 28 day service window (wait period) for it to be issued.
After that, you are GTG to carry a handgun anywhere you so wish (damn I love freedom) [outside Federal or State buildings, and certain DoD Contractor facilties].
After that, you are GTG to carry a handgun anywhere you so wish (damn I love freedom) [outside Federal or State buildings, and certain DoD Contractor facilties].
And that meets the supposed aimof our system, but at far less cost and no criminal liability (paper crimes) for law-abiding citizens.
We are maintaining a hugely expensive bureaucracy rife with errors.
The Florida system described:
- Establishes identity at least as accurately as our licencing system;
- Requires a criminal background check at the time of transfer of ownership; and
- Requires proof of competency.
No separate bureaucracy is necessary to do this, and there is no significant cost - certainly nothing close to what we have wasted.
Note that, despite holding a licence that could be revoked for a number of reasons, a criminal check is still done on would-be purchasers at the time of transfer of ownership.
Precisely the same thing could be done here, with any number of documents being used to demonstrate competency at least to the level of a weekend course and multiple-guess exam: proof of military or police service, provincial hunter course, accreditation from a shooting club (who have a vested interest in ensuring the competency of their members for obvious reasons) etcetera.
Proof of competency, identity, and clear background check - sale goes through.
Simple and inexpensive.
What more do we really need?
We are maintaining a hugely expensive bureaucracy rife with errors.
The Florida system described:
- Establishes identity at least as accurately as our licencing system;
- Requires a criminal background check at the time of transfer of ownership; and
- Requires proof of competency.
No separate bureaucracy is necessary to do this, and there is no significant cost - certainly nothing close to what we have wasted.
Note that, despite holding a licence that could be revoked for a number of reasons, a criminal check is still done on would-be purchasers at the time of transfer of ownership.
Precisely the same thing could be done here, with any number of documents being used to demonstrate competency at least to the level of a weekend course and multiple-guess exam: proof of military or police service, provincial hunter course, accreditation from a shooting club (who have a vested interest in ensuring the competency of their members for obvious reasons) etcetera.
Proof of competency, identity, and clear background check - sale goes through.
Simple and inexpensive.
What more do we really need?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Loachman said:
A government that will enact a simple, workable, no nonsense legislation like this.
I neglected to add the one more thing that we really need, but that's in conjunction with non-criminal treatment of honest citizens rather than part of it - a justice system that keeps real and violent criminals out of society, and truly puts protection of the innocent ahead of other considerations.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Loachman said:
Ah, but that would require a judiciary that is willing to cause people to be accountable for their actions. And that is just unreasonable.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
[quote
[/quote]
Well every cloud does have a bit of a silver lining, so the present gun control does and will serve some use.
But now really !, what self respectable Career Criminal with a record is going to attempt to purchase a Firearm from a legitimate source ?.
Now if every sale of a Firearm was accompanied by a Photo, Finger Prints and a Sample and Rifling Diagram of that Weapon (Shotguns excluded). This info centrally located and accessable Internationally by any Law Enforcement Agency, now would be a great tool for Leo's and Bureaus.
Now all it tells you is that the Applicant has not at this time a Criminal Record.
Where this Applicant resides at this time and that there is now is a Firearm at that given address.
And possibly that this person at the time of purchase was not a Nutter.
For my Money (which is very little) is this worth Hundreds of Million Dollars and really worth all the controversy for what it actually does ?.
Lets face it, Buying a Firearm is as easy as Buying Drugs, theres a Dealer on every corner.
Cheers.
[/quote]
Well every cloud does have a bit of a silver lining, so the present gun control does and will serve some use.
But now really !, what self respectable Career Criminal with a record is going to attempt to purchase a Firearm from a legitimate source ?.
Now if every sale of a Firearm was accompanied by a Photo, Finger Prints and a Sample and Rifling Diagram of that Weapon (Shotguns excluded). This info centrally located and accessable Internationally by any Law Enforcement Agency, now would be a great tool for Leo's and Bureaus.
Now all it tells you is that the Applicant has not at this time a Criminal Record.
Where this Applicant resides at this time and that there is now is a Firearm at that given address.
And possibly that this person at the time of purchase was not a Nutter.
For my Money (which is very little) is this worth Hundreds of Million Dollars and really worth all the controversy for what it actually does ?.
Lets face it, Buying a Firearm is as easy as Buying Drugs, theres a Dealer on every corner.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 18,678
- Points
- 1,260
I hope your kidding?
FYI NFA items in the US (in states that allow them) require a $200 Tax Stamp ($5 for AOW's) Fringerprints of the owner, and Chief Law Enforcement Officer (in the city/county) sign off [unless you are a business, or a trust].
My prints and a $200 fee for a transferable Full Auto, Short Barrel Rifle, Short Barrel Shotgun, or Suppressor = something I can live with.
The $18,500 price for a next to new condition transferable M16A2 carbine is tough to swallow though.
FYI NFA items in the US (in states that allow them) require a $200 Tax Stamp ($5 for AOW's) Fringerprints of the owner, and Chief Law Enforcement Officer (in the city/county) sign off [unless you are a business, or a trust].
My prints and a $200 fee for a transferable Full Auto, Short Barrel Rifle, Short Barrel Shotgun, or Suppressor = something I can live with.
The $18,500 price for a next to new condition transferable M16A2 carbine is tough to swallow though.
- Status
Similar threads
