Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich "State-Sponsored Terrorism!" (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wrote a diary that does just that. (3+ / 0-)

    And it doesn't impact my right to keep and bear arms in a negative sense at all. link

    I'm willing to not oppose UBCs, as long as there isn't a firearm registry. Also willing to hold parents or guardians responsible for the damage a child does with the firearm they left unsecured. There's even more. But bans on magazine capacity or certain types of firearms because they're scary looking are a no for me.

    •  How do you have a UBC without a registry? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalSal, Kevskos, coquiero

      One requires the other, does it not?

      •  UBC says who is allowed to own a gun (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, KVoimakas

        It isn't necessary to track whether a person actually owns a gun to know if they are allowed to own a gun or not.

        A driver's license says a person is allowed to drive a car, but it doesn't track how many cars that person owns.

        •  Revocation? (5+ / 0-)

          A nut gets his permit/license/whatever taken away for whatever reason.  If you aren't keeping tabs on his guns, how do you take them away?  My driver's license is tied to my car registration, after all.

          •  That's a valid point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But the purpose of a background check isn't to make it possible to take guns away.  It's to verify if a person is allowed to buy new guns.

            For your scenario of a person being arrested and having his guns taken away, in that case his home and other property can be searched, and that person can be charged with other felonies and given longer jail time if he refuses to surrender all his weapons.  That's all done through due process in court.

            But the government doesn't get to keep tabs on all the guns, I don't want them to.  When I inherit my grandfather's guns, no one is going to know about it.  I don't want some future fascist government knowing where all the guns are, and sending SWAT teams out after them.  When that has happened in the past in other countries, it ended very badly for the people who had their guns taken away.

            •  Not simply arrested (0+ / 0-)

              There may be administrative reasons for revoking a license and requiring citizens to surrender or at least declare their guns.  They may include erders of protection, findings of mental incompetence, or simply lapsed documentation.  How can you verify that prohibited people have indeed surrendered legally acquired guns if you don't register them?

          •  My cars (7+ / 0-)

            are registered with the same government agency that issues my drivers license.  I have to notify them when I sell a car, I have to have the sells transaction verified by a notary, I have to provide them with proof of insurance, and my insurance company notifies that same state agency if I drop coverage.

            Sure, I could ignore all those regulations but if I get caught for even a very minor motor vehicle infraction they will throw the book at me.  Guns should also be registered, tied to the license which needs to be mandatory to be able to own a gun and each and every gun needs to be insured.

            "In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism" Marine Corp Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler

            by Kevskos on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:43:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No ... but each state has a searchable data base (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          of registered vehicles so the Goddamned Government KNOWS who owns what kind of cars and where to go to confiscate them -- because that's what Goddamned Government always does !

          Personally, I think a  "shooters license" ... with "points" for every violation of  fish and game laws, and criminal statutes, is probably "a bridge too far."

          But if the trade off was the ability to buy firearms from a licensed seller, with NO background check and NO waiting period ...

          Maybe that would be worth it.

          •  Has there been a call to confiscate vehicles (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            like there have been politicians calling for banning firearms?

            •  Well, no ... but, "same as guns" -- they COULD !! (0+ / 0-)

              If they wanted to .  It. Could. Happen.  The British did in Ireland during the Troubles ... confiscate motor vehicles, that is --  as well as non-sporting firearms.

              But here and now there aren't any politicians actually CALLING for confiscation of arms already in the hands of citizens ...  Not that I know of.  Can you name one who IS ?

              What IS being called for ... fecklessly, in my opinion ... is treating the Modern Sporting Rifle   (aka Ugly Gun) much as we already treat automatic weapons,  weapons with explosive or incendiary ammunition  or weapons with greater that .50 projectiles.

              And let's be serious:  if there WAS  Gubberment plot  to Grab De Gunz ...  the starting place would the sporting goods shops and hunt clubs.

              •  Feinstein has said if she could gather the votes, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                she'd ban ALL of them.

                •  The B-tch ! (0+ / 0-)

                  Considering the source, I think I'd like to see the exact quotation ... maybe a link to the full text.

                  Because it really IS pretty obvious ... the outright "banning" of guns ... outlawing their possession ... as opposed to regulating their manufacture and sale of them ... WOULD require a Constitutional Amendment.

                  And based on the experience of the Equal Rights Amendment (not to mention the "Money Isn't Speech, Corporations Aren't People" Amendment) -- doesn't "Let's Amend the Constitution"  translate as "Let's Pound Sand and Spin Wheels ?"

              •  Yes there is. The same Senator that introduced (0+ / 0-)

                the Assault Weapons BAN to the Senate for a vote as a matter if fact:

                "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it"--Dianne Feinstein

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:14:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you. You're right. She did, didn't she ? (0+ / 0-)

                  And that was an exceptionally stupid thing for her to say ... especially if "em" was supposed to mean  "ALL firearms."

                  As we know, 51  votes in the Senate won't even pass a law ...  (filibuster, and all that).

                   What would be needed would have been a 2/3 vote in both the House and the  Senate and 3/4's of the State Legislatures concurring.

                  Could Sen Feinstein have forgotten her High School Civics so completely ?

                  Or was she just letting her feelings about mass murder put her mouth into motor mode ?

                  •  Pure speculation: (0+ / 0-)

                    I think Dianne Feinstein is simply an authoritarian with an authoritarian mindset.
                    After all, she had a CCW permit & concealed firearm in the late seventies.
                    She seems to have a very "some are more equal than others" mindset.

                    Although it is correct that confiscating all firearms isn't going to pass (nor be constitutional), it is the end game for many gun controllers. In fact, here on DKOS there is a group called "Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment".
                    If they are willing to ban a firearm that is used in murders less than half as often than even bare hands are used (and six times less than knives), they would be willing to ban even Feinstein articulated.

                    It's a difficult sell to try and argue that they don't want to ban guns during a time when a gun ban is proposed.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:46:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What this all tells me is: Dialog (0+ / 0-)

                      with Gunners is next-to-impossible --

                      Compromise and Concession are pretty pointless ... all it does is weaken your position -- and there will be no reciprocal accommodation.

                      I guess that's why President Obama WILL try to negotiate with Vladimir Putin and not with House Republicans. He knows the difference between "unlikely" and "hopeless."

                      Similarly: Gunners ...  you can't negotiate with the "One Way, My Way" kind of guy.

                      But, just remember:  Anton Scalia can't live forever.

                      As of now there  IS an near-absolute and individual right to keep and bear arms  (local government permitting). However, there is NO equivalent constitutional right to manufacture or SELL firearms.

                      And THAT's why eventually, ...  and for much the same reasons ...  we'll get the same sort of de facto ban on ugly guns and large magazines that we now have on switchblade knives.  (Local law permitting you can manufacture or own them all you like ... "introducing  (them)  "into interstate commerce" is a whole other kettle of fish.

                      There's no reason you  can't hunt deer and bear with bows, knives and bare hands -- like the First Americans did.


      •  No. There have been some suggestions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        put forth that would mean no registry.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site