Slateman

1] Yes, they should lose their rights to purchase, forever. They knew the consequences prior to committing a felony, it's on them.

2] Yes, we should be the only ones allowed to own guns, in the US.

3] I agree with this, they need to consolidate gun laws across all the states, imo. With certain places potentially having stricter restrictions (e.g. DC, NYC, etc.).

Why do only "we" have the right to firearms for sale defense? Are non-citizens not people too?

Yes we should. Because the mandatory classes are not for buying the gun, it's for the right to conceal them. Even the most ignorant people that shouldn't have any type of gun (rifle, handgun, etc.) can pretty much purchase one as long as they haven't had any of the red flags that prohibit (history of mental illness, ex-con, dishonorable military discharge, etc.).

The only thing required in NC to purchase a handgun is a $5 permit, background check and application at the local sheriff's office. Granted the application can take up to 30 days. But to purchase a shotgun or rifle, it's basically a quick background check at the store you are purchasing it from and sold on the spot.

It is extremely easy for one to exercise their 2nd amendment right and purchase a firearm as long as they haven't ****ed up in the past. Concealed carry is not a right, imo.

Cool. Again, just trim a little fat off the constitution and we can go ahead and implement that. Actually, a lot of fat off the constitution. Pretty much all of it because everything I suggested has been shot down by the courts numerous times.

BTW, permit in NC is $80 plus $10 for fingerprints

Well, then your argument that we can replace voting with guns has just been shot full of holes.

Ummm ... Not really. I don't feel that way about voting either.

So, just to make clear first... you are in favor of all of the above. Absolutely, no one is allowed to own or operate a gun not in their home state, no one can own or operate a gun who is under 18, and you have to register to operate, possess or use a gun

 

Once you agree that these should be applied to guns as they are applied to voting I'll address yours.

No, I don't think that if you commit a felony you should lose your rights forever.

No, I don't believe that only citizens on the United States should be allowed to own guns.

No, I do not believe you should only be allowed use a gun in the state you reside.

Absolutely, I agree that I will have my right to vote limited by age. I can not own a gun until age 18.

I agree that if I commit a felony I lose the right permanently to own a gun or vote.

I agree with you that only a citizen of the United States may be allowed to vote or possess a gun.

I agree with you that you can only vote or use a gun in the state in which you reside.

Should I go on?

Yes, please do.

 

Shall we have mandatory training and classes that you must pay for in order to vote?

Should the government be allowed to force you to buy a special voting license?

Prior to voting, should the voting officials be required to run a background check on you?

Should you have to have a note from your mental health professional, that you must pay for, in order to cast a vote?

1) It's noy "my method". (To be more correct, "my analogy".) It's yours.

2) And the alcohol isn't what does the damage, in drunk driving. It's the 3000 lbs of steel which grants a person the ability to accidentally kill people.

 

---

 

Are you claiming that

 

1)  It's impossible to balance those two goals

 

2)  And, if we can't do both, then the only thing we can do is keep the guns flowing, and just accept it? 

It is your method, because you were the one who brought up the methods.

 

Alcohol most definitely does the damage. And more over, it is the person who makes the choice to drink and then makes a choice to get in the car. Just like it's a person who makes a choice  to point a gun at someone and makes a choice to pull the trigger.

 

Yes, it is impossible to balance those goals. And the default must be to error on the side of the individual right. Again, founding tennant of the Constitution. We error on the side of the right on literally every other right, we must do it on this one as well.

 

Oh, and power comes from the individual's will, not their possessions. Nelson Mandela has proved that. So have numerous others.

So, I was thinking about rights and how people say a Driver's licence isn't tied to any rights. I have bought into that argument for a while, but am wondering if maybe I was underthinking it.

 

We don't ask the government for permission to leave the state. We don't need a visa or passport to do so and we aren't stamped and interviewed when leaving/entering. So, with that line of thought... the movement is a right.  Clearly, one of the chief ways we move today is by car. Yet we do licence that. We control how a person is allowed to move. Much like how with gun control some attempt to control what type of weapon we are allowed to bare. After all, no one really would think it unsuitable for a militia organized in defense of the state to have access to tanks, SAMs, etc... so, we already have accepted the idea that the government should limit the type of arms we can bare. 

 

So, why shouldn't a CCV come not only with a permit, but a licence? Why shouldn't someone who wants a gun have to prove that they know how to maintain and operate it. Freedom to bare arms, freedom of movement... why not?

 

I know this argument will be ridiculed and dismissed, but maybe that driver's licence in your pocket really is a limitation on a basic, inalienable, and guaranteed right.

You do not have to have a license to access the roads, merely to operate a motor vehicle on them. There have been several cases that have a established this.  The government cannot deny you freedom movement, but they don't have to let you operate a motor vehicle.

 

From now on, I want you to replace "gun" with "the right to vote" or "abortion." Tell me if you still think those requirements are constitutional.

And by your method we just wait until the person with the gun breaks the law in some way, or goes on a shooting spree or murders someone before trying to stop them and then lament that we couldn't do more to stop them after its over. So basically the status quo. Sweet.

Are you claiming that we can do something about that AND allow the vast majority of people within the US to own firearms?

And what that has to do with, say, a law requiring people to register their weapons, is . . . ?

 

Well, and we tweek the definition of legally drunk, and we set up checkpoints to check people, and we regulate and tax people who sell alcohol, and we limit their hours and their advertising, and we flat out forbid drinking for people who are legally adults, and we create "driving while impaired" laws, and . . .

And we balance all of these regulations against the competing societal interest that a car is pretty much required for the vast majority of Americans to live their lifestyle. Yeah, there's Americans who live without them. There's Americans who live without electricity, too.

In other words, we legislate their behavior and not the process of acquiring all the things in the first place. We don't require anything before hand. No requirements for special licensing to buy or possess alcohol. No mental health screening required. No extensive background check with a computer system to see if I'm on parole for a DUI. We simply establish what the expected behavior  is and then work to catch and punish those who operate outside accepted norms.

 

So by taking your method, we should regulate those who sell firearms (done) and people should be able to buy a firearm by simply showing they are over 18/21 (ie, their driver's license or ID card). And those people who act outside the law will be dealt with by the police and we will pass laws restricting the usage of said firearms to lawful uses.

Wow. Here I was going to agree with you.

Then you went full retard, in your second paragraph. And went to plaid in the third.

"Responsibility is on the individual, not the state."?

So you'll be advocating for the complete dissolution of our justice system, then?

Or would you rather walk back that claim and admit that governments have a legitimate role in actually enforcing responsibility? (That, in fact, doing so is the reason governments exist?).

And do you seriously want to say that you support people carrying weapons, because most places where the owner prohibits weapons don't really search people well enough to stop you?

Where did I saw I advocate for complete dissolution of our justice system? It is the individual's responsibility to know the law and how it applies to them. If they do not, then they will suffer the consequences. The state has already fulfilled their responsibility with the creation of the law and the system upon which that law my determined whether or not it is constitutional or not.

 

This is the foundation of our legal system. Period.

 

When we arrest people for DUI, no one demands that car companies make cars with breathalyzers. No one demands that the legislature pass a law demanding that people who drink have to register their alcoholic beverages, nor do we demand that people undergo psychiatric screenings for alcohol abuse. It is treated as it should be. The individual willfully and negligently ignored common sense and the law, intentionally consumed alcohol, and got in to a vehicle.

Yes but it is still an example of how a potentially dangerous object and activity requires a mix of personal responsibility and regulations and laws in order to remain somewhat safe. Then again, if a person is a "2nd amendment is absolute and there can be no restrictions ever. Period" extremist then there isn't much to say because anything else is meaningless to them.

 

Other rights do have regulations as well. But, again, 2nd amendment extremists are deaf to anything like that. Sorta like pretty much any extremists.

And of those rights that have regulations, how many of them have mental screenings for every individual exercising them? How many people have to undergo criminal background checks and pay money to be trained how to do it? When you go to get a permit for an assembly, do they make you take classes? How about training on how to "properly" conduct a peaceful assembly?

Sometimes people simply aren't responsible enough or smart enough to know what level is sufficient or to even care. You have to have a mix of personal responsibility and common sense laws and regulations. Its the same with cars. You have obvious personal responsibility when you get behind the wheel but we also have plenty of laws and regulations that are symbiotic with that and reinforce it.

Cars are privileges, not rights.

How can requiring classes/training for a CCP suppress firearms ownership? You can still buy the firearm, you just can't conceal it legally, where allowed.

I am for buying/owning guns, I'm also for CCP for those that want those. But I'm also for requiring more mandatory training than already offered. My wife wants to get her CCP in the next couple of years, I'm behind her 100%.

The responsibility of owning a gun, knowing how to use and store it properly, laws around what you can and can't do, firing it properly (if it ever came to that) is tremendous. Last thing we need is for it to make it easier for people to obtain handguns and have minimal training to conceal one.

I would like to pose this question, and before I ask, I'll state that I'm not against CCP. But, what is the big deal to get a CCP? Really outside of being able to travel with it and be able to store in a trunk, glovebox, etc. and having it on your person when walking from your car into your apartment complex, house, etc. what other purpose does it really serve?

Can't take them into the vast majority of places where you might need them on the walk back to your car. Example, say you are out late at a place that prohibits firearms (sporting event, work, dinner, etc.) walking back to your car and **** goes down. If you obeyed the law properly, you wouldn't have the gun on your person concealed anyhow.

Because the government gets to decide how much and to what level is sufficient. If you need an example, see California, Chicago, Maryland, DC, or NYC.

Responsibility is on the individual, not the state.

There are few places that openly prohibit firearms and have the means to enforce it. The most you can get charged with is tresspassing ANDA they have to ask you to leave before calling the police.

I know it varies by state, but it's not that much money.  In NC it's $80, $10 fee for fingerprinting and a $75 renewal fee every 5 years.  If one can afford the gun, they can afford to pay a little extra for training associated with it.  

 

I just looked and found one class for $49 total (includes the 8 hours training, test, range shooting from 3, 5 and 7 yards, etc.).  Personally, if one can't pay $140 total, they don't need to conceal carry.  

 

Pretty simple, save up for the class, take it.  Save up for the permit and finger printing, submit application.  Doesn't all have to be completed at the same time.  Depending on the handgun purchased, that's what cost the most. 

 

If you are talking additional training, I see no problem with it costing them $100 for twice the required amount of training and more tests.  

It's not that much money ... for now. Look at other places that have higher fees. Look at a place like Chicago or NYC.

 

Quite frankly, it's just another way of trying to suppress firearms ownership.

You're right.

All those whiny dead people should just man up and recognize that they are the price that needs to be paid, so that some people can enjoy their hobby.

 

Really sucks, the way this country actually considers the costs to society, of some recreational activities. 

And this is why we have a no fly list, for which there is no due process. This is why we have places like Guantanamo Bay and American citizens being held with no due process and tortured. This is why we have TSA violating the 4th Amendment every time we walk in to an airport. This why the FBI, NSA, and other agencies access our digital data at will. You're the reason why abortion gets so severely restricted. You're the reason why voter IDs were pushed forward.

I don't think it's unreasonable to require an ID to vote

 

I also don't think it's unreasonable to require training before carrying a concealed weapon.

 

I can see how some would create unreasonable requirements to enforce their agenda, but I think you can absolutely have reasonable requirements.

 

And the fact that it costs money, I say: wah. I think it's a mistake to conflate carrying a concealed weapon with the second amendment. Two totally different issues to me.

 

I'm genuinely confused. Because I specifically said:

I'm not really happy about how lax the CCW permit approval process is in some areas.

 

and:

I, personally, wish there was a federal concealed weapons permit that set some relatively high standards...

 

Unreasonable and constitutional are vastly different things.

 

It's not unreasonable to require basic training and testing for anyone desiring citizenship. It's unconstitutional though.

Thousands of dead people?

It truly terrifies me that there are people who are so desperate for the illusion of security that they will willingly sacrifice their rights so quickly and earnestly. I have no idea how people got to the point where banning things or people make them feel safer, but I weep for this society.

 

 

I don't see how being smart or wealthy has anything to do with it.   

 

And ensuring someone hasn't had any schizophrenic episodes in the past before giving them permission to carry a concealed firearm is infringing on our rights?  Fine line I guess, as you could say it does.  But it makes so much sense to take a little extra time and do a little extra digging before handing out gun permits and CCW licenses.  

 

Because training and licensing requirements will cost money. Guess who that discriminates against? Poor people. And usually poor people are the least educated of our society. Remember all the people who screamed about how voter ID laws targeted poor people who couldn't afford ID? Same principle here. It specifically targets people who are poor and uneducated.

 

Also, the AG has not released any information on what exactly parts of those states CCW process did not meet Virginia's standards. Frankly, this move is purely political because he and McAwful can't have their way on firearms due to the GOP held legislature. I have a hard time believing that states like Ohio, Delaware, and Pennsylvania have some sort of flaw in their system, but Utah and Oklahoma don't.

Shall Issue states make it way too easy.  I own quite a few guns and I can't understand how some of these low IQ gun humpers wouldn't be okay with a more in depth process before being allowed to get a permit.  Wouldn't rational people be all for a stricter process?

 

If you're a law-biding citizen, have no priors and no history of mental illness, than you should have no issues buying 15 guns every year like some of them do.  

Because it's a right, not some cool privilege that only the smart and wealthy should be able to enjoy. Some people in this country think that that means something.

 

Like being 18 to vote or not slandering or libeling... or allowing classified documents? Gosh, who'd think that having standards or limits on rights would be a good thing :facepalm:

Lol, if only those were actually the same thing as what we're talking about. If only.

Hearing the standards that these CCW permit holders have to meet is not all that comforting. 

 

Edit: LOL... Tshile and I are so philosophically apart on this. No standards is not a good standard when it comes to lethal weapons.

"Standards" to exercise a right. What could possibly go wrong ...

See I thought VA required you to go to court... Might be wrong on that. Utah info came from reading an article about it years ago.

Maybe this one: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/us/06guns.html?referer=

I'd say that maybe it's gotten more strict since then, but what are the chances of that?

You have to give the application to the clerk. You can mail it or you can actually go to the court.

So VA will no longer accept other state's CCW.

Yes, all those out of state CCW/CHP holders going on their murder sprees here in Virginia.

 

I would love to see the stats for how many people have been murdered by out of state CCW/CHP holders vs the police.

I was only half paying attention to it, but it seemed like it could be interesting. When did SyFy learn they were allowed to have good original programming?

Thanks for those who replied to my questions. I am very much pro-gun ownership (even though I don't own one), just like I'm pro any other amendment to the US Constitution.

As for the 'militia' argument, that has been settled by several court cases, most relevant here.

Also, there has been nothing listed here that would have stopped the mass shootings in the past couple years, nor would have stopped what happened with the terrorism in California.

Nothing here that I've read in the past 18 pages addresses the real gun violence - inner city people (mostly black, by FBI statistics) killing other inner city people (mostly blacks, by same statistics).

That's because of you bring it up in any other context other than white privilege and guns are killing black kids, you're immediately labeled a racist.

Might seem simple but what about an executive order banning media from mentioning the name or anything about any of these shooters

Yes. The Great Leader issuing proclamations about what the media can and can't do. That will definitely go over well.

Pretty much all of the arguments on that side rely on slippery slope and it is incredibly effective because it relies on fear. "Well yeah they just want to register now but you know who else liked registering people? THE NAZIS! Right now its just registering but its a quick jump from there to confiscating all your guns by force and taking away all of your freedoms. Don't you like Freedom? It will all be going away!"

It's also effective because of the last five years. Snowden, Stingray, NSA, ect.

WTF does that matter?.....we got a voter to placate

 

Bacon,.... rushing the shooter is advised if ya think he is going to kill you and escape is impossible....by experts.

 

I call it Marine mentality

Well, no, it matters. It matters a lot. Effectively, the President is now condoning a illegal act.

 

The ATF has ruled, for the past three decades, that if you buy a firearm with the intention of selling it, you are effectively a firearms dealer and need to have an FFL. Which requires going through the whole process of certification, inspection, access to NICCS, and background checks. The President has just declared that "private dealers" have to access to NICS in order to run a background check, thus, private dealers are no longer breaking the law because the President has declared that they are free to do it.

by their definition, someone who sells 50 or more guns a yr w/o a license

 

 

Uh ... that would be illegal.