Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Control ← There, said it - We are going about this the wrong way (619 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have owned guns most of my life....... (10+ / 0-)

    and keep a handgun in the trunk of my car. I would have no problem with having to register said gun; nor would I mind having to take and pass a safety course (and background/mental stability checks) to be a licensed gun owner.

    That being said I doubt I will see either in what remains of my life time; I am 65.  The NRA has so successfully sold the "registration and licensing is the first step toward confiscation"  meme to the most rabid gun owners; that I cannot see how it can be countered in three or four life times.

    We need a group or confederation of groups that support RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP (including handguns) that can grow powerful enough to counter the NRA. Until then we are pissing into the wind.  

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

    by cazcee on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:16:24 AM PST

    •  Here's a start (9+ / 0-)

      "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

      by meagert on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:18:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Odd isn't it? (4+ / 0-)

      Not a single one of my vehicles has been confiscated, nor threatened with such.

      However, if I were to use it to commit a crime, the chances are high that the Tag would help law enforcement catch me.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:33:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That parallel isn't quite right. (6+ / 0-)

        Cars aren't really all the concealable so people know you have them even if you don't have them registered.

        There's been no call for in-city bans of cars or calls for a ban on a certain type of car (like the AWB). In the case of the SKS over in Cali, registration did proceed confiscation. If there was no registration, confiscation wouldn't work nearly as well, to the point that I don't think it'd be tried.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:38:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Part of the conversation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          just another vet, glorificus

          we need to have is what is considered appropriate protection, and what should not be permitted.

          The constitution doesn't address this, we have to work that out for ourselves.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          by twigg on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:45:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, the Second Amendment reads as... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twigg

            "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."

            Perhaps two key points. One being a 'regulated militia' would fall under the domain and responsibility of the government. The government therefore has the right to determine what arms are admissible.

            And two, "being necessary to the security of a free State..." would suggest to me that individual self defense was not part of the granted right.

            Personally, I believe had the United States been limited to the original 13, then eventually arms would have been confined to armories where they could be dispensed if the state was at risk. That it was the constant push into frontier lands and the need for people to defend themselves that pushed the concept of the Second Amendment beyond the right it was originally conceived to grant.

            Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

            by Pescadero Bill on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 09:09:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree a bit Bill. Way back Brits allowed (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              twigg, oldpunk, PavePusher

              only the lairds & ladies & royalty to hunt.  This severely limited the diet of most poor folk commoners.  In these new lands, a poor guy could feed his family well without ending up in debtor's prison.     Food insecurity can be deadly too.   So even hunting is a type of self defense motive.  

              To other posters, militia was local defense of individuals joining together when facing an outside threat ---- such as attack by natives or by the armies of their official government from England.    

              Declaration of Independence made it pretty clear that we were  claiming a right to defend ourselves, even from our government, if & when it failed to allow our basic human rights.  

              De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

              by Neon Mama on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 11:59:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Arguably, individual self defense.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk

              is the cornor-stone of "the security of a free state".

    •  cazcee, I believe you're correct. (8+ / 0-)

      I also believe the GCA '68 blanket prohibition on "felons" as compared to persons convicted of crimes of violence, is in-error and targeted predominantly the African-American community, freshly franchised with rights in the mid-1960s.

      By crimes of violence, I refer to assault, rape, aggravated battery, robbery, and homicide.

      Compared to felony possession of narcotics, fraud, DWI (though I'd preclude a concealed carry permit based on DWI as you don't play well with others), SEC violations, etc....

      If we focus on those persons without an "off" switch, who lay hands and more upon others?  We may just jail those who need jailing, and let the others go.

      I believe there should be a "militia association", "firearms association" or some-such, which promotes firearms safety and competency for persons of all races and social status.
      If you're incompetent, the association revokes your firearms card, and perhaps the right to leave your house with that gun is taken by due process of law.

      I dunno, about the fine details, but getting closer to a Swiss system (re: social benefits and firearms) can't be a bad thing.

      •  The law often calls these "forcible felonies" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        43north, Smoh, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:13:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But the Swiss are more mature than us. They have (0+ / 0-)

        proven they are mature enough to handle guns. We have proved that we are not grown up enough yet to be trusted with firearms. If you address all the root causes of crime and eliminate them you would still have 300 million guns floating around out there. And as 47% own guns it is pretty certain that some people feel the need to own more than one gun. Do you really need more than one gun? Oh yeah hunting. But why could you not use the same weapon to kill Bambi mothers as well as shoot kids listening to hip hop in the next car.

        Bitter, hell yeah. But that is because RKBA called me a liar about being a victim of gun violence.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site