Gun owner licensing

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I thought you were talking about a licensing requirement other than whatever is in affect now.

I'm talking about replacing existing laws with a different system. Right now you've got places where you have to wait 10 days and can't get full capacity magazines, as well as places that's it's virtually impossible to get a carry permit. I'd like to see that changed, and I think that a unified national system is a reasonable solution.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Right - and taking away her driver's license (because she was certifiably mentally ill) could have made that less likely. It couldn't have stopped her, of course. She could have stolen someone's car and done it anyway. It just would have made it harder.

Actually, she could have just driven her own car, without a license.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,069]

>Actually, she could have just driven her own car, without a license.

Right. Like I said, it wouldn't have stopped her, just made it harder.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Agreed. Which is why I said it would make it less likely rather than make it impossible

What I've found in my experience is that all the restrictions accomplish are punishments after the fact. They don't even make the acts less likely.

Bill, what experience do you have to lead you to believe that the restrictions on licenses make it less likely? This is an honest question, since you live a long way away from me, you may have some experience that shows a difference in the culture where you live.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[AdamLanes 1]

A license would constitute a direct infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Besides, if you think someone who is intent on robbing or killing others will be stopped by the fact that they don't have a license, then you are not grounded in reality. Also, don't forget what happened shortly after the National Socialist Party of Germany required the registration of guns.

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

>Nutjobs will simply buy a gun on the black market.

This woman didn't. She walked into a gun range, rented a gun and killed her son and herself. Facts can be annoying things.

The fact is that woman was a nutjob. The fact is she rented a gun and did what she did. The fact is that she was going to do what she was going to do whether she rented a gun, bought a gun on the black market, stole a gun, bought or borrowed a gun from someone that wasn't aware of her mental instability, or committed her act of violence without a gun at all.

Yes, facts can be annoying things.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 3,069]

>The fact is that woman was a nutjob. The fact is she rented a
>gun and did what she did.

Agreed.

> The fact is that she was going to do what she was going to do whether
>she rented a gun, bought a gun on the black market, stole a gun, bought
>or borrowed a gun from someone that wasn't aware of her mental
>instability, or committed her act of violence without a gun at all.

Complete supposition on your part. That's not a fact. Indeed, your "fact" was proven incorrect by her earlier actions - she tried to kill herself, and failed.

>Yes, facts can be annoying things.

They can indeed! Especially when a fictional "fact" turns out to be provably incorrect.

[quade 4]

Quote

Also, don't forget what happened shortly after the National Socialist Party of Germany required the registration of guns.

What the Nazi Party did in 1938 was RELAX gun regulations that had been in place since 1928. From 1919 to 1928 Germans were prohibited from owning weapons entirely as a result of the Versailles Treaty.

Now, you -might- get away with saying the Nazis targeted a single group of people and prohibited them from owning -any- weapons (the sub-set of which would include guns), but it is inaccurate to say they INCREASED gun laws.

Edited to add reference;
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=557183

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>2. How will licensing reduce the number of criminals with guns?

It would have helped prevent the incident with the gun range mom, which inspired this poll.

I am throwing the bullshit flag.

If someone wants a gun a license will not stand in their way.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I suppose you want to have licensing for your right to speak or type something on the internet.

Maybe you want a license against illegal search and seizure.

[quade 4]

Quote

I suppose you want to have licensing for your right to speak or type something on the internet..

Following the exact same illogical line of reasoning as you have in so many threads. Glad to see there's always going to be room for discussion with you.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Your constant droning on about control of anything you do not agree with is quite annoying.

It is also quite predictable.


So I guess you want to have to have a license to complain then right?

[quade 4]

Quote

Your constant droning on about control of anything you do not agree with is quite annoying.

Feel free to not read and respond then. I certainly wouldn't want to annoy you.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Then why do you complain about someone refusing to infringe on anyone Else's rights?

I am not in favor of infringing on any rights, not even yours.

Too bad you cannot fathom doing the same.

[quade 4]

Maybe if you actually read what is being talked about in the thread rather than just spewing out garbage in a Pavlovian response we could have a discussion.

Follow the logic of what Tom, I and others actually have been talking about.

It's NOT about infringing on your rights FFS. It's about making the entire process simpler and easier.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Simpler and easier to confiscate. yep it is about that.

Get it through your head, you are talking about licensing a constitutional right.

[quade 4]

You STILL haven't read the thread.

FFS, try just reading it before spouting off.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

Now, you -might- get away with saying the Nazis targeted a single group of people

Wow, how quickly we forget. Or maybe you just never knew. But the Jews were not the only target of the Nazis. Other "undesirables" targeted and murdered by the National Socialists included: gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, outspoken journalists, communists, the elderly, mentally ill, handicapped, Catholics, intellectuals, and others.

[wmw999 2,534]

Quote

Simpler and easier to confiscate

The license is to the person, not the gun. And the license is automatically given to every 18-year-old (or 16 with parents' permission) who has taken the gun training class.

There are no guns involved in this, only people. It's attacking the education side, and leaving the guns up to the people.

Are you against education (boy, now there's a loaded question )

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[warpedskydiver 0]

I see a different solution, how about the training and no license?

That way were are not licensing a right.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Now, you -might- get away with saying the Nazis targeted a single group of people

Wow, how quickly we forget. Or maybe you just never knew. But the Jews were not the only target of the Nazis. Other "undesirables" targeted and murdered by the National Socialists included: gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, outspoken journalists, communists, the elderly, mentally ill, handicapped, Catholics, intellectuals, and others.

In his version it was only the Jews so that was OK.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Ad Hominem?

I thought better of you than that.

[billvon 3,069]

>If someone wants a gun a license will not stand in their way.

I'm not claiming it would keep criminals from getting guns. I am claiming it would have helped prevent THIS SPECIFIC incident.

[wmw999 2,534]

the smiley probably should have given it away that it wasn't a real question.

The "license" just is verification that you took the training. The right to vote is also a right, but we have to register for it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I see a different solution, how about the training and no license?

That way were are not licensing a right.

The idea is that you have something to stand in for the right (the license) in the event you need to revoke it on an individual case-by-case basis (for example, for mental patients, or felons).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com