Gun nuts proposal for gun control

Licence every semi-auto firearm huh?

How much is the licence going to be?
A dollar or two to begin and then climb to a few hundred every year?

That's the same method they used to get people to quit smoking.

The health scare part didn't work, so, they just raised the prices until people said "enough is enough, I give up".
 
More recently, we’re told that the new law is a “needed first step”.
Click to expand...

That’s true.
First step toward what end?
Maybe what it would take is for those doing the telling to answer that question honestly, (though I don’t see that ever happening or really even working), for everyone in our ranks to realize what is at truly stake.

The goal Is not reasonable regulation, nor is it compromise in anyway shape or form.
It is complete disarmament of law abiding citizens, and they aren’t the problem that said law is the first step toward fixing.

Enough is enough.
If we wish for our children and grandchildren live under the blanket of freedom that our flag has provided all of us, we’d better wake up to just what end any proposed new law is a needed first step toward.
 
And furthermore, one session of Congress cannot bind a later one.
The most "reasonable" or even favorable law is only good until the next election.
 
That's a good point and even well taken for a SCOTUS decision. One might give us a positive gun spin and after a cycle of replacements, it could be overturned.

Major social issues have gone that way in decisions. Heller is a candidate for such or to be interpreted in an even more detrimental manner for some gun types.

The real battle is the in the social and cultural environment such that the general populace supports a position. The courts and Congress follow.
 
I agree that the no-compromise folks of both sides would make discussion difficult.
Click to expand...

Maybe because

In 1934, the Federal government restricted (not banned, restricted) ownership of full auto firearms, set min/max size restrictions on guns, and restricted "silencers" (any device intended to reduce the report of a firearm - whether it actually did, or not).

In 1968 the government added a huge list of new restrictions and outright prohibitions that had never existed before.

In 1986, a law that was intended to ease some of the most burdensome aspect of the 1968 law passed, but with an amendment that prohibited any new additions to the federal full auto registry. Essentially the number of full auto firearms legal for civilians to own was fixed at those the govt. already had in its registry.

Since then, every few years, the Fed government has added new gun laws and new restrictions. Background checks, assault weapon "bans", etc. Each and every time, we were told that the law would "fix" a certain problem. More recently, we're told the new law is a "needed first step".

The problem(s) we were told would be fixed by these laws have not been fixed. If you listen to the news, the problems have gotten WORSE!!!

Now here is a proposal for yet another law, to fix the same unfixed problems.

a popular saying these days is..
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.
Click to expand...

Gun owners are tired of being played like Lucy plays Charlie Brown with the football, EVERY SINGLE TIME. When will we ever learn? You can NOT negotiate with the Progressives, as today's compromise is just the starting point for tomorrow's ..... a Long March into giving up what were ostensibly "Inalienable Rights". I don't know who this "Jon Stokes" and don't care, as I'm done talking to people that use words like "reasonable first steps" and "sensible compromise". I'll save my breath for people willing to discuss what they are offering to do to expand rights of gun owners...... I'll start there..... until then, forget it.
 
I can't believe anyone here would seriously consider such a license.
Click to expand...

Ha! Gun Rights, to some people, means "Anything that doesn't curtail what I'm doing right now is Okey-Dokey."

"Do it to Julia!" indeed. Such people are worse, in my book, than the useful idiots on the other side that honestly just want to "do it for the Children!" ......
 
What I'm hoping for is an overreach; pass some draconian law, and gun owners collectively give the government the middle finger. It should end in a standoff, and *everybody* loses respect for laws in general.
Click to expand...

You are hoping for Anarchy? Be careful what you wish for.......
 
The basic problem with this proposal is the same basic problem with all new proposed gun laws, and that is that laws only affect law abiding people, and they are not the problem.

The problem lies with bad people; evil people, sick people, drug dealers, gangs, criminals, terrorists, robbers, rapists, etc. This proposal has no effect on these people. Everyone seems to believe that reducing the availability of guns will reduce crime while ignoring the fact that there are over 300 million guns already in circulation in the USA. Bad people have always had guns and will always be able to obtain them, the vast majority of which are already illegal. The proposal fails to address how to keep guns from falling into wrong hands.

There are a lot of other aspects to the proposal that make its implementation impractical as others here have noted, but at its core it simply fails to address the root causes of violence, and fails to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. We are not made safer by restricting gun ownership among good people while leaving the bad people fully armed - in fact just the opposite.

If you want to reduce "gun violence", go to where the violence is. The majority of murders committed with guns take place in America's inner cities. This is a good place to start, with a focus on removing weapons from bad hands, perhaps through more severe punishment when caught with an illegal gun. Education and social programs just don't seem to work with evil people. Likewise a focus on identifying and providing help for sick and suicidal people, as well as a vigorous effort to track potential terrorists. None of this will prevent violence, but could be more effective at curbing it than restricting or disarming the good citizens.

I'm not qualified to offer a good solution, but I can sure smell a bad one.
 
The basic problem with this proposal is the same basic problem with all new proposed gun laws, and that is that laws only affect law abiding people, and they are not the problem.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, law abiding gun owners are exactly the "problem" the banners are trying to solve. Those are the people who must be disarmed or made into criminals.
Anything they say about crime or school shootings is just a rationalization for it, and mostly a smokescreen.
 
Playing devil's advocate, though, the fact that only one registered machine gun has ever been used in a homicide since the 1934 NFA was passed is a powerful argument that registration works to prevent crime.

I abhor the idea, but pointing out that a registration database would be too expensive and unwieldy to establish or maintain may be a factually better argument against this notion.
 
GLG said:
Playing devil's advocate, though, the fact that only one registered machine gun has ever been used in a homicide since the 1934 NFA was passed is a powerful argument that registration works to prevent crime.
Click to expand...

How does NFA registration serve a low homocide rate? (the question isn't rhetorical.)

If the item used in the single homocide was a long gun, it's already in a minority category of crime involving the use of arms. Yet, one in 80 years is still quite low.

The combination of the stamp and the machine gun is quite expensive. Early on, the $200 stamp was almost prohibitively expensive; later, the stamp's cost had been eroded by inflation, but the cost of the item after the closed registry was almost prohibitive. This raises two questions:

1. Are people less likely to use prohibitively expensive items to kill people? I'd hate to use even a beautiful S&W 41 in a defensive shooting knowing I could lose it. I'd bet that very few people are strangled with Faberge necklaces.

2. Are people with ample resources less likely to solve a problem via homocide? That may well be, but it points to a conclusion some won't like -- registered machine guns are almost never used in crime because poor people don't have any registered machine guns. That doesn't indicate the utility of the registry as much as it indicates the utility of keeping an item away from the poor.
 
Last edited:
Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. -from Guncite

I note that Guncite says nothing of the other homicide.... google truns up nothing, either, save that it happened in 1992 ..... I wonder who Google is covering for now?
 
For discussion, does the idea that this proposal breaks the restricted laws in some states have any positive merit?

We know that currently the Congress and SCOTUS show little interest in taking this on. That's one of my pet peeves about both these organizations.

Of course, they probably wouldn't take this proposal on either.

Please don't wander into denouncing those states or the people who live there. There are good progun folks who have to live in these places for a myriad of real world reasons.
 
I read thru, and hopefully I am not repeating something already stated here.

Would the government or licensing agency have the ability to suspend issuance of licenses at will? For whatever reason? and for however long they wish?

And when the government is having difficulties figuring out a budget would this licensing agency be one of the services to lose funding and have to shutdown until a budget is agreed upon? Seems to happen once a year, right?

And who would come up with the criteria that determines a person will pass such careful vetting? An impartial party, I am sure! :rolleyes:
 
to convince me that our government is serious about lowering gun violence, I would want to see them go after the guns which are used by gangs, nut jobs, criminals, ect. To do so, our government will not need any new laws, they just need to enforce the ones they have. As of now, they aren't. Going after law abiding citizens with their gun laws will not reduce crime and they know it.
 
For discussion, does the idea that this proposal breaks the restricted laws in some states have any positive merit?
Click to expand...

Good question, but I would be inclined to think that the opposite would likely happen.
States that are restrictive now, would likely be just as restrictive and find some means to impose some of their restrictions on others should a brain phart scheme like this ever be implemented.
Those of us with more liberal laws in our individual state would likely lose some of that liberty to restrictive states influence on the final phart.
Then again, maybe I'm just too cynical.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
For discussion, does the idea that this proposal breaks the restricted laws in some states have any positive merit?

We know that currently the Congress and SCOTUS show little interest in taking this on. That's one of my pet peeves about both these organizations.

Of course, they probably wouldn't take this proposal on either.

Please don't wander into denouncing those states or the people who live there. There are good progun folks who have to live in these places for a myriad of real world reasons.
Click to expand...
I live in one of "those" states. I'm still not interested in this proposal.

My great grandfather was a professor of law. An ancestor farther back in that same geneological line was a Supreme Court justice. I was raised to believe that it you think a law is bad -- work to change it. I was also raised to believe that words have meanings. "Shall not be infringed" seems to have lost track of the meaning of either "infringe" or "not" -- or both. I don't think the solution is to create yet another layer of infringement; I think the solution is to work toward restoring the Second Amendment to what it meant at the time when it was written.
 
Would the government or licensing agency have the ability to suspend issuance of licenses at will?
Click to expand...
That's a good point. What would the disqualifying criteria be, and who decides what it is?

We could very well see legislation to disqualify people for all sorts of things. Second drunk driving offense? First? Moral turpitude? Fibbing on taxes? Wrong political views?
 
I think the solution is to work toward restoring the Second Amendment to what it meant at the time when it was written.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
The only way to accomplish that is through rulings by a conservative Supreme Court that defines the Second Amendment once and for all.
Understanding that once and for all does not mean forever, but it has the potential to be for the rest of my life time and the largest portion of my son's lives if the next several years go as I believe that they will.
Vote to that end and for the love of pete STOP handing victory to our oppostion in the mean time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top