Skip to main content

We need some common sense firearms management in this country. And it needs to come from firearms owners. I suspect that this is the only source of firearms management that firearms owners will accept. There is a wonderful start in a diary by canis aureus that popped up last night that we all should read. I suggest we all start this discussion by reading that discussion, because it really gets to the heart of this matter, much better than my paltry kung fu can. I hope they come and join us here.

I also suspect that firearms owners realize that a tiny number of whack jobs are ruining it for the much larger number of responsible firearms owners. And, I suspect that they realize that if they don't do something to help increase responsible firearms management, then they won't be surprised when society does it for them. It will happen eventually. Remember how MADD started?

Responsible firearms management opposition comes in a range of “flavors”. But, from the “when you pry it from my cold dead hands comrade” kind; to the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” kind; to the well-reasoned, “intent of the founders” penned more than two hundred years ago kind; to the kind who say “it’s just too complex, so why even try it”, there is a common thread. They don't change the fact that this country desperately needs responsible firearms management.

So everyone take a deep breath, settle down, and let’s go over the fancy scroll gun sight and calmly discuss how we can agree on responsible firearms management.

First off, I don’t want your guns. Most people I know don’t want your guns, either. I have no use for them. I find them quaintly anachronistic, but otherwise purposeless. So don’t worry about me advocating for banning gun ownership, because it’s not happening. So let’s drop the “when it’s a crime to own guns” line.

Next, please do not mention the “criminals don’t obey the law, so they’ll get guns anyway” line. Jared Loughner was not a criminal and had only misdemeanors and traffic stops before he decided to kill six people and injure 14 more. Hell, he passed an FBI check! James Holmes had no prior criminal record before he went off the deep end. And gang bangers are a whole different problem. We need to solve one problem at a time, please.

Finally, we’re talking about the “it’s crazy people with guns who give us responsible gun owners a bad name” thing. You’re right! It is the crazy people! How do you propose to stop that? You want to own guns, right? What do you propose we do to make sure only responsible people have access to guns?

I've got a start. I am required to have a license to drive a car. And my car is titled and plated. I have to renew my license every four years, at which time they can see if I am still physically capable of driving. And every eight years I have to drive for them, so they can determine if I really can still drive. And I have to plate my car annually and transfer the title of my car when I sell it or trade it in. And although I can kill with my car it is infinitely slower and much less deadly. Why all that for a car but not for a gun?

So, let’s start the discussion with a national license to own guns. And something similar to a car title for every gun. And we pay for it with the annual sticker. It’s got to be at least modeled at the national level so that there is consistency among the States. I apply for it, get my background check and I’m good to go for a few years of responsible gun ownership. I reapply periodically, where they assess me to make sure I’m still good to go. If I’m a current, responsible, law-abiding gun owner I get my titles and stickers. Voila.

Now I can hear it already, “all you’re doing is putting more restrictions on me, and it’s a burden on gun shop owners, and it wouldn’t do anything about private sales to individuals and how do you title all those guns and so on and so on”. Sounds just like the “it’s too hard, so let’s not do anything” crowd.

Do you have a better idea? I’m listening! Don’t tell me why it won’t work! Tell me what you would do to make it work!

I would like to take the best parts of this discussion and distill them into another diary for further discussion and refinement. The ultimate goal is to put forth a document that both sides of this argument can agree upon as "the DK way forward". Ambitious, I know, but it beats nothing!

Now, let's set some ground rules for the discussion.

1. All rules contained in cassandracarolina's stellar series "The Unrav'ling Thread" are hereby made a part of these ground rules. If you haven't read this series you really should. If you have read this series, but your just here for the pie fight, please reconsider.

2. No idea is completely without merit, so don't be afraid to offer one. And remember that the responses to your idea are only information. They can only bother you if you let them.

3. Again, no idea is completely without merit, so please, if you feel the urge to scream "That will never work you stupid f'ing moron", please refrain. It only makes you look like a stupid f'ing moron.

4. If you know why it won't work, then surely you also know what will work. If you're smart enough to know why something wont work you're also smart enough to know something that will work.

5. If you read a comment that you feel presents a valid point or makes a cogent argument please recommend it. DO NOT recommend it just because you wanted to flame the previous commentor. I would like to use the comments as guides in the distillation process, so recommend for content and not for applause.

OK. I'm sure it's not as much fun as a spittle flyin' pie fight, but let's begin!






Top Comments Submission Made Easy

Just click on the Spinning Top photo to submit a comment from this diary to Top Comments. Copy the entire comment (including the commenter's user name and the date/time) and paste it into the message. Add your reason for nominating and send.

Top Comments posts nightly at 10pm EST.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)


    -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
    - Aristotle


    by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:31:57 PM PDT

  •  Please read . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    princesspat, Pluto

    . . . this excellent diary as a primer to this discussion.

    And enjoy


    -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
    - Aristotle


    by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:34:27 PM PDT

  •  I actually do mean (17+ / 0-)

    my comment to be respectful.  One needs to look no farther than the RKBA group on this site regarding responsible gun ownership.  I took an NRA course (required) by an incredibly smart guy when I was applying for my pistol permit.  One of his mantras for those of us who were knew to guns:  "Don't use a firearm for defense if you can flee or use pepper mace.  Chances are, the offensive party will relieve you of your weapon."

    Every single solitary gun owner I know is highly responsible.  And I know plenty -- from hunters to cops to target shooters.

    The focus should be on mental health and education in this country.  If you can name me one mass murder with a gun who doesn't have mental/educational issues, I'd like to know who they are.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:37:40 PM PDT

    •  Point taken . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaveinBremerton, Canis Aureus

      . . . gchaucer2, that we are woefully lacking in mental health care and education in this country. I remember mainstreaming (combining special needs back into mainstream classes) when I was in the 7th grade.

      Can mental health screening of people who want to become firearms owners help? And, as you mentioned in the start of your comment, can firearms education for people who want to become firearms owners help?


      -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
      - Aristotle


      by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:48:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why would firearms owners (7+ / 0-)

        need to give up privacy rights which Henckles knives owners do not?  What is your mental health criteria for gun ownership?

        My point about mental health is that this country doesn't give a shite about it and then wonders why certain people do horrible things.  All individuals who have had mental health care are not homicidal maniacs in the making.

        " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:21:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think that . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DaveinBremerton

          . . . anyone needs to relinquish privacy. And as for what constitutes someone who is mentally healthy enough for responsible firearms ownership, I'll leave that to the responsible firearms owners to decide. What criteria could we use?

          You are absolutely right that we don't care about mental health in this country. We don't really care about each other, much less each other's mental health. And I also agree that past mental health care is not grounds for a decision regarding anything.

          But we can't let allow the more morally challenging aspects to deny us progress on the things we can agree on.


          -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
          - Aristotle


          by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:39:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  agreed although DoD would claim their entire (0+ / 0-)

      operation is free of those issues by fiat

      If you can name me one mass murder with a gun who doesn't have mental/educational issues, I'd like to know who they are.

      Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

      by annieli on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:13:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  to me (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      Canis Aureus

      the focus should be that the desire to fire guns is a disease. Gun ownership should carry the same stigma as drug use. Gun shop owners, such as the one in Greenfield, WI, that sold Wade his 9mm and provided a place to practice killing people should be regarded in the same manner as pornographers and crack dealers.
      You have the right to bear arms. We have the right to despise you for the cost of that.

      and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

      by le sequoit on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:31:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would be interested in your response, but (0+ / 0-)

      I would imagine that any test for gun ownership would be unacceptable to you? I'm not sure what I would agree with, actually.

      I think I'm in favor of registering and proving residence for a shotguns and rifles, but would not agree with any kind of psychological "fitness" test. I'm not sure why people believe they have a right to sidearms and full auto weapons, but I'd be in favor of a much higher standard for those (as is the case already for full auto).

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty

      by jeff in nyc on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:40:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let me explain what I (8+ / 0-)

        had to go through in order to buy a gun in CT.  First, I went to my local police department (then, small town) with my filled out application and got finger printed.  Then, I took a gun training/safety course while waiting the month to have my fingerprints checked out.  I had to pass the course while at the same time I was being checked for crimes, my mental stability and most likely my credit.

        Once I got the ok re: my gun course and fingerprints -- I could apply for my state permit.  In CT if I broke any law which involved violence (domestic/robbery/assault/etc) or was stupid with my weapon -- I would lose my permit.

        Every single solitary one of those regulations/requirements I willingly and thankfully went through.

        Any other preconceived notions you have about me?

        " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:18:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks and sorry if it sounded like I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gchaucer2

          was being disrespectful. I am not your enemy, and we've commented for nearly a decade without fighting.

          I had no idea that the laws were onerous in CT.

          “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty

          by jeff in nyc on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:26:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks, jeff (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jeff in nyc

            and how come I haven't seen you respond to the August 19th (Sunday) NYC meetup -- we're in your effing neighborhood!!!

            Do you think you'd like to come?  I'll give you the details if you are interested.

            " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

            by gchaucer2 on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:29:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  gc2 I hope we didn't . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          notrouble

          . . . start off on the wrong foot upstream. What you describe from CT here I view as excessive. All well intentioned, just like the road to Hell, just too onerous. There has to be a happy median somewhere. Or is it medium? I can never remember.

          Sorry if I have offended.


          -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
          - Aristotle


          by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:13:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Best wishes (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    princesspat, rudyblues, BachFan, IndieGuy

    Good luck on your descent into the belly of the beast. Right now it seems to me America's gun control debate is even less rational than her climate change or evolution debates.

    Don your asbestos underwear.

    •  Nomex is our friend! But really . . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund, BachFan, Pluto

      . . . I think this debate is like most, we're really closer than we think but we just can't get over hurling superlatives. It's the most or the worst of the best. No, not really, it's just another in a long line.

      I'm cautiously optimistic. If it flames out I'll dump it.


      -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
      - Aristotle


      by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:55:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nomex 4 teh winzorz (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rudyblues

        Been years since I heard that word. :)

        AS for the debate, right now I just see that same furious compulsion to shout down any and every criticism no matter how mild the criticism.

        So what's my answer? Nothing that hasn't already been ventured only to be met with paint-blistering responses.

        •  Have to agree, our discourse in this country. . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund

          . . . has really deteriorated over the last decade or so. I think talk radio may have played a small role in that. I think comedians like Dennis Leary and Louis Black also had a small role. Why debate when you can debase?

          Still, gotta try.


          -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
          - Aristotle


          by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:11:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Don't worry, everybody else has one too, and (0+ / 0-)

    when they all take them out and start blasting away, they will all just hit the bad guy.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:43:34 PM PDT

  •  This conversation is hard for me..... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rudyblues, Pluto, Joy of Fishes, IndieGuy

    Because I'm afraid of guns and of people with guns. I grew up on a ranch in rural south western Nevada and every truck had a gun rack with several rifles. I never knew when someone would just decide to kill an animal or threaten someone else. So.....on this subject I try to be rational, but I have a primal fear of guns.

    I was expected to know how to handle a gun and I was a very good shot.....but that didn't stop the fear,

    I have very good friends who are responsible gun owners....but I can't share their fun because of my fear.

    Why do I mention fear.....because the emotion stops a rational discussion on all sides.....fear guns will be taken, fear they won't.

    There has to be a rational middle ground. Thanks for opening the discussion tonight.

    Love is the lasting legacy of our lives

    by princesspat on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:53:57 PM PDT

    •  Thanks princesspat, I think . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      princesspat

      . . . you may be less the "exception" and more the rule than you imagine.

      I was put way off guns when I was a child, and over the years I've not had to deal with them much. I don't know how I would react if I had to get up close and personal today. I'd like to think I would do well.

      But I can understand some peoples passions for guns and I can't deny them the passion. I just hope we can all find a common ground approach that will help.

      Gotta keep tryin', anyway.

      Peace


      -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
      - Aristotle


      by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:02:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Satire? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      princesspat

      The best satire is indistinguishable from the real thing, and I think this is some pretty good satire.

    •  Not fear. (0+ / 0-)

      Reasonable suspicion of a political movement that was twenty years ago calling for outright bans of arbitrary classes of weapons. That speaks glowingly of countries that have gone the full ride towards confiscation.

      No, not fear. Contempt. And justified, too.

      Regarding your personal fear of guns, have you considered taking up shooting again? Never hurts to face a phobia and concur it.

  •  Great idea. (10+ / 0-)

    Let's also require a license for free speech... and I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who would love to license women's naughty parts.
    Not the same? Well, the Constitution says you have the right to speak freely. It also says you have the right to "keep and bear arms." How do you justify requiring a license for the Second Amendment, but not the First?

    (Cue the cries of "but GUNS kill people!" So does free speech as practiced by Fox "News," which killed more people in Iraq than guns killed in America in the last decade... )

    "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

    by Tom Seaview on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:13:39 PM PDT

    •  Good point Tom, but . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Canis Aureus

      . . . free speech is not really "free" if you think about it. There are laws against libel, slander and against yelling fire in a crowded theater, to name a few "acts of free speech". So just because there isn't a "free speech license" doesn't mean that there aren't limits on free speech.

      Likewise, there are already limits on second amendment rights. In fact, none of the liberties and freedoms enumerated (or not enumerated) in the Bill of Rights and the subsequent Amendments are absolute, and all have from time to time been more carefully defined in the Amendment/SCOTUS decision process.

      As for Faux News, yea, I'd like them to shut up, too!


      -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
      - Aristotle


      by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:25:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and Tom didn't say anything to get this back,,, (7+ / 0-)
        free speech is not really "free"
        Enforcement of current gun laws is basic and supported by most all RKBA members here.

        Your argument seems to be looking for some 'guns should be unregulated' trope, you ain't gonna find it.

        RKBAdkos is trying to get dems elected and not smeared with as gun grabbers.

        RKBAdkos here is not trying to repeal current gun controls, but calls for better enforcement, better screening, education, and a more just and employed society to reduce crime and desperation and increase opportunities for a better life.
           It's a usual and well worn smear to even suggest anybody here says

        'guns should be unregulated'
        . And maybe that's not what you meant.

        But besides my nannieing about that, why do this diary now?

        There are no new bits of information to be learned that haven't been learned or argued relentlessly by 'both sides'...well, all three sides before here.

        Why not wait til the elections when we know who we can talk to, the reeper/LaRouchians, the Paulbots have all gone to suck their thumbs...then this is a good idea.

        Until then, it's a distraction and divisive, we have elections to help win.

        I suggest do this in three months, I'll gladly help.

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:50:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tom equated . . . (0+ / 0-)

          . . . first amendment license to second amendment license. I pointed that out. I am not "looking" for an "unregulated guns trope", only pointing out that I disagree with an objection to second amendment "license" using first amendment "license" grounds.

          And I am 110% behind the efforts and advocacy of RKBA, since any firearms management effort needs to come from consensus. We're all in this together!

          My intent wasn't to make a third side here but to draw us all into one side. We are more the same than different, and I'm trying to emphasize that. Sorry if timing or language offended.


          -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
          - Aristotle


          by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:58:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  oh geez, no offense unless that was sarcastic. but (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rudyblues, elkhunter, Tom Seaview

            good effort really.

                I still think we should just can the gun diaries for now. We can't concentrate on it and , as you may have seen in the flameout today of addikell, I think he was doing this just as some payback at RKBA from his previous flameout with them.
              Too much going on, too much emotion to work, that;s my opinion.

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 07:57:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  None taken, KenBee, since . . . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee

              . . . it only bothers you if you let it. ;-) I have thick skin and a long, self-extinguishing fuse.

              I'm with you, and at the same time, given the recent spate of events, a little against you on canning the gun diaries. I feel like anytime we can work to bring progressives together, particularly when current events and emotions drive us apart, it's an effort worth making.

              Keep your stick on the ice. Remember, we're all in this together!


              -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
              - Aristotle


              by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:06:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  And those limits are decided by strict scrutiny. (0+ / 0-)

        See? We can find some common ground after all.

    •  The Constitution (0+ / 0-)

      also says only landholding males get to vote, but, hey.

      and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

      by le sequoit on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:38:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Every gun owner must be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joy of Fishes

    a member of a militia , the militia would be run by and for gun owners . Every member would need to be approved for membership by the other members of the militia . Every gun owned by a member would have to be approved of by the militia . Every militia member would have to buy insurance from the militia for every gun they own .
    Its a system where the upstanding gun owners take care of the problems .

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:21:25 PM PDT

    •  If we go back and review . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes

      . . . previous SCOTUS case law and contemporary writings (written at that time) of the proponents of the second amendment I think we would find that there was a particular aversion to language in the amendment "forcing" people into a militia because that was on of the things that drew people to the colonies in the first place.

      However, canis aureus did mention in his fine write up that he would like to discuss increasing the responsibilities of the "well regulated militia". I like the concept but I would also like to see how we make sure that the militia doesn't turn into the armed insurrection. Checks and balances are important to long term stability in any venture.


      -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
      - Aristotle


      by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:34:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This militia would not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Canis Aureus

        be set up as a fighting force .
        Nobody would be forced to take up arms .

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:48:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed, but . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IndieGuy, notrouble

          . . . some would argue that mandatory "belonging" in this militia as a requirement to "keep and bear arms" was not the intent of the authors of the amendment. So, to make that interpretation now would be viewed unfavorably.

          Still, good and valid observation. Thanks.


          -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
          - Aristotle


          by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 07:33:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  sort of like (0+ / 0-)

      the foxes running the hen house

      and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

      by le sequoit on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:39:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More like the hens guarding the eggs . (0+ / 0-)

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:45:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  OK, so if the prefatory clause . . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joy of Fishes

        . . . of the Seond Amendment is "to maintain a well regulated militia", then why not require someone who want's to own a gun to be in a well regulated, State sanctioned militia? Not a group of like minded individuals out in the country plinkin' cans, but a real, National Guard kind of thing. What better way to perform periodic evaluations of the mental state of responsible gun owners.

        Again, refer to canis aureus.


        -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
        - Aristotle


        by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:54:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Doesn't say "to maintain a well regulated militia" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          notrouble, rockhound, theatre goon

          it says:

          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.
          it most certainly does NOT say gun rights are only applicable through membership in a militia by any stretch of the English language

          What it does say is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Thats not an absolute right, like freedom of speech is not an absolute right---you can't tell lies to a cop for instance.
          And there are gun laws where I live. I went through about the same process in Oregon that gchaucer went through to get my license. Not quite as onerous but along the same lines

          Happy just to be alive

          by exlrrp on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:35:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agree with you, exlrrp . . . (0+ / 0-)

            . . . and the intent of the authors specifically avoided this inference. Upstream . . .

            If we go back and review previous SCOTUS case law and contemporary writings (written at that time) of the proponents of the second amendment I think we would find that there was a particular aversion to language in the amendment "forcing" people into a militia because that was on of the things that drew people to the colonies in the first place.
            Just bringing some information from canis aureus' diary into this conversation. Sorry if I offended.


            -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
            - Aristotle


            by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:48:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I agree with you but the best first step is not a (0+ / 0-)

    national license but a model/pilot program based on coordination between some individual state agency and the BATF to issue owner-operator licenses, in fact extending the apparatus used by some states for the CCW with different guidelines, of course. This would make it like Medicare for All. Which state would volunteer first? I vote for a smaller place like Hawai'i or Rhode Island. Having each gun manufacturer serial number identified with an actual owner on the one hand and in real time makes the paranoid more so, but maybe we should know who they are anyway in terms of trust and reciprocity (the so-called public good).

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:21:32 PM PDT

    •  I agree with the States' involvement . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli

      . . . but I'd think we would need a floor to make sure that what the individual States did melded in with a cohesive plan that would work inter-State as well as intra-State.

      Pilot program would be a good approach but I think we might need to test in small as well as large States. What if small State wasn't representative, or the solution didn't scale well? The engineers in my company always want to test in the most conducive environment. I want the acid test!

      Good stuff, thanks.


      -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
      - Aristotle


      by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:23:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's about creating a scalable test as well as (0+ / 0-)

        testing intrastate reciprocity since CCW is not universally reciprocal now among all states. Indiana would be the best test of that.

        Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

        by annieli on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:26:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  T/R'ed for trying to do it the right way: (4+ / 0-)

    Communicating.


    Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

    by IndieGuy on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:24:00 PM PDT

  •  OK, I'll participate. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rudyblues

    I want to reduce the carnage.  I do not want to take guns away from responsible gun owners.  CA's list of suggestions and some of the additional suggestions in the comments in yesterday's diary sound reasonable to me and seem like a good place to start.  

    Thank you for continuing the discussion, rudyblues.  

    •  Thank you for participating, JoF, and please . . . (0+ / 0-)

      . . . review some of the other good stuff at the RKBA group. They have discussed this for some time now and all of my part here is pale in comparison.


      -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
      - Aristotle


      by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:57:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about requiring a NICS check (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rudyblues, theatre goon

    for ALL firearms purchases, closing the private party sale exception? The NICS check is required when I buy a gun from a dealer, or when I buy a gun from out of state (it has to be shipped to my local dealer, who runs the NICS check before I can take possession.)

    Right now I can buy a gun from a private party, or sell a gun to a private party provided I do "not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law." How much information do buyers share?

    If the NICS check is required for all purchases I'm not sure licensing of individuals or firearms would be needed. Isn't the personal information being checked the same?

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:45:27 PM PDT

    •  I think reasonable and responsible . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      notrouble

      . . . firearms owners among us would agree to closing this loophole, even if they didn't agree on the actual impact of the change, as long as the check didn't prove too onerous. Any solutions need to be at or very near automatic if they are to enjoy widespread acceptance.

      Where I live you can register to vote as you are renewing your driver's license. If we can couple multiple things together like that we're more likely to get buy on.

      Thanks for stopping by.


      -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
      - Aristotle


      by rudyblues on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 03:49:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can support this idea... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, notrouble

      ...but there are some serious limitations that I, personally, have not figured out a way around.

      Firstly, the cost would have to be non-prohibitive.  I have a friend who is a licensed dealer, he charges a flat $25 transfer fee, that seems reasonable.  That's no big problem.

      The problem, as I see it, is enforcement.  How do you propose to enforce this requirement with the huge number of privately-owned, unregistered firearms in this country?

      I mean, I could sell a firearm to my neighbor and he can say, if asked, that he's owned it for years.  That being the case, this rapidly becomes a toothless law.  Without tying it to some sort of registrations (which, in reality, is simply not going to happen in this country), I just don't see it as being more than a voluntary restriction.  Now, it could be that such a voluntary restriction would help, but...

      It is one that I would follow even now -- unless I was selling a firearm to one of the very few people I know well enough to know their health and legal background, I would do a consignment sale through a licensed dealer.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 04:09:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My though on enforcement (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        would be that the requirement is on both the seller and buyer. The seller has to know the NICS check is done and the buyer has to have passed the NICS check. There would have to be sanctions of some type on both buyers and sellers involved in a transaction where the check wasn't done. Most likely a seller would only be caught if the gun was taken from the buyer by police (arrest or warrant search) of if the gun was recovered from a crime.

        I don't think law abiding citizens would want to be facing possible thousand dollar fines or misdemeanor convictions or loss of right to possess firearms if found guilty of making a non-checked sale. What the sanctions actually are would be a subject of debate if such a proposal was seriously considered.

        I think requirement could also cut down on straw purchasers.

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 02:15:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you miss some of my point. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          notrouble, Pete Cortez, KVoimakas

          I have firearms with absolutely no record of where they came from -- if I sell that to someone else, then even if that gun is recovered from a crime, there is absolutely no way to show that I was the one who sold them that gun.

          Unless I admitted it, I suppose, but that would be a pretty silly thing to do in that hypothetical, wouldn't it?

          In other words, there is absolutely no way to enforce that law when it comes to the millions of unregistered guns in this country.

          Now, on the other hand, if the hypothetical law required everyone to provide absolute proof of where all of their firearms came from, that would be swinging entirely too far the other way -- requiring people to prove that they are not guilty.  This is even more problematic...

          Note, I am not saying that I don't think it would help at all, I'm just not sure that it would be a particularly effective way to curb crime, either -- only the law-abiding would obey this law, as it would be almost impossible to prove someone broke it, short of a "sting" operation.

          I do think that a fair number of gun owners would take advantage of such a system, but those are also the least likely to be breaking the law in the first place.

          It really is something of a conundrum...

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 02:57:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see what you are saying (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon

            Once a gun has a sale recorded it is in the system it is a simple matter to go back to the last recorded owner. Of course, any gun manufactured after such a change was in effect would have a trail starting at initial sale. Other guns would pick up in the system the first time they pass through a dealers hands. I think it would take some time for its effectiveness to increase to where most guns have a last owner than can be looked up if they are recovered. It would also be handy for theft recovery. I'm much less worried about a gun an owner has kept for years being used in a crime, stability has already been demonstrated.

            Perhaps it wouldn't work, but I'm more comfortable checking at purchase than an owner licensing plan. That may be a comfortable with my own state thing, there is no license required to own a firearm in Washington state. It is required for concealed carry, but the cost is minimal and we are a shall issue state with no training requirement. (And down at 35th of 50 in firearm crime rate.) I know the nearly daily drip of gun crime reports on the news involve people who where not supposed to have them, at least in my area.

            This doesn't address the issue for mental fitness that seems to be the issue in a couple of tragic cases that opened this can of worms on Dkos. I freely admit I don't have good answers for that. There are issues of medical privacy vs. improving a NICS check, and the idea of people avoiding mental health care because it could cause them problems like this. I think medical care providers and experts have to be involved in untangling these conflicting interests. And of course, gun owners too.

            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

            by notrouble on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 03:24:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I guess I should also ask (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon

            How do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of those who have forfeited their right due to criminal activity?

            We have had a couple of major cases lately where the gunman legally had the guns, but the daily grind on the nightly news involves mostly people with previous convictions that make them ineligible to own firearms. I would like to see ways to keep guns away from those owners with minimal impact on lawful ownership.

            (One other thought about requiring NICS checks on all sales. If such a thing was enacted then over time there would be fewer and fewer owners who would have been able to buy before the checks where required for all sales.)

            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

            by notrouble on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 06:42:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, to date... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, notrouble

              ...the NICS system has been our best option at that -- and, as earlier noted, we do need to strengthen it and require states to keep their information updated.

              Apart from that, it's more about enforcement -- in fact, that old saying that so many people don't like, we don't need new laws, we need to enforce the ones we have.

              We need to fully enforce the laws and punishments for those who are legally restricted from doing so but are caught with firearms.

              I'm going to reply to both of your posts at once (my 'net connection got a bit dodgy yesterday for a while).  You seem to be coming very close to something of a  backdoor registration plan:

              Once a gun has a sale recorded it is in the system it is a simple matter to go back to the last recorded owner.
              That's just not going to fly in this country, in any foreseeable future.  I am firmly convinced that even seriously pursuing such would lead to strong Republican majorities across the board -- and, as a certain other Kossack likes to say, Republicans in power cause more damage than guns do.

              Apart from that, I do truly believe we'll do much, much better by treating the true causes of crime, rather than focusing on the tool used.  That, however, is going to be neither cheap nor quick, and therefore it's going to be hard to get our elected officials fully behind it -- and this is not wholly their fault.  They're elected to do something right now, and the electorate doesn't always have the patience that they should.

              Excellent exchange, by the way -- I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:54:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It has been a good exchange (0+ / 0-)

                Thank you.

                I agree with you that the Democrats including President Obama should steer well clear of anything that could get labeled "gun control." There will always be a handful of non-credible right wing extremists screaming "Obama is going to take your guns away." The Romney campaign and credible supporters are almost certainly going to steer well away from pushing the anti-gun president meme because it will backfire given Governor Romney's record.

                Gov. Romney raised the cost of concealed licenses 400%.
                Gov. Romney signed into a law a mandatory waiting period.
                Gov. Romney enacted an "assault weapons" ban.

                President Obama lifted a prohibition on firearms in National Parks, returning it to a state's law issue.

                A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                by notrouble on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:33:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

      Holmes, Laughner, and Cho all filled out 4473.

  •  Seems to be this fantasy going around. (0+ / 0-)

    The one where anti-gun types imagine that there's a silent majority of gun owners that side with their woefully uninformed selves against a handful of "whackjobs."

    It's an understandable lie to yourself, especially after the sort of political beating the Brady Bunch have taken over the past two decades.

    •  So I take it . . . (0+ / 0-)

      . . . you're completely against discussion of any kind? Duly noted. Thanks for participating.


      -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
      - Aristotle


      by rudyblues on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 08:33:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You keep talking about the need for "discussion." (0+ / 0-)

        Discuss.  Let's start out with some of your opening points (setting aside the meta stuff).

        2. No idea is completely without merit, so don't be afraid to offer one. And remember that the responses to your idea are only information. They can only bother you if you let them.
        Plenty of ideas are without merit.  You don't "discuss" climate change seriously with climate change deniers.  You don't "discuss" guns with people who can't tell the diference between an AR-15 and an M-16, or regurgitate the same handful of solutions the Brady Bunch came up with twenty years ago without addressing the multitude of extraordinarily credible objections.
        4. If you know why it won't work, then surely you also know what will work. If you're smart enough to know why something wont work you're also smart enough to know something that will work.
        This is silly. Simply because I know how to use CCSM 3 doesn't mean I know how to assess the impact scenarios in the IPCC report.  Also, simply because a proposed "solution" turns out to be a farce doesn't mean that the actual answer, or answers, to a particular problem are obvious and known.
  •  Guns treated like cars. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon

    Let's take this through to the logical conclusion then.

    No permit to buy a car.
    No registration for a car not used on public property.
    No waiting period for a car.
    No age limit to buy a car.
    No state reciprocity BS for someone who has a drivers license.
    No limit on numbers of cars you can own.
    No tracking of who buys what car at the federal level (or state for that matter).
    No tracking on who buys what 'gas' to run their cars.

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

    by KVoimakas on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 08:31:46 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site