Gun nuts proposal for gun control

[44 AMP]

For discussion, does the idea that this proposal breaks the restricted laws in some states have any positive merit?

If you mean that the proposed semi auto license would free one from the various state laws prohibiting such, Stokes kind of dances around the point, saying a bit of both.

he claims his idea would allow you to have items prohibited by certain states currently (Assault weapons and "oversize" magazine) and once you have his semi auto license, the states can't prosecute you for having them in their state.

BUT, he also says his license wouldn't interfere with state and local laws about carrying them, etc. (see "can I carry an AR in Times Square in his Q&A section).

He's touting the benefit of his license (freedom from spurious prosecution) yet at the same time downplaying the fact that still enforced local laws preventing you from carrying the weapon give no benefit to the "protected" out of state owner, being essentially the current status quo, plus the addition of the federal semi auto license and what ever its requirements wind up being.

it is the verbal matador's cape, concealing the sword (still) held behind it.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .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? . . . .

Let's not forget what Congress has already done to the gun-rights restoration section (whatever it's called) at BATFE. That section hasn't been funded since something like 1992.

 

[44 AMP]

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.

People with ample resources have options that "poor people" do not have.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because some connection can be found or manufactured between two different things that one must cause the other.

If you stretch parameters enough, you can make a correlation between anything that happens on this planet. The Butterfly Effect. Chaos Theory. Call it anything you want, you can find some kind of connection.

That does NOT mean the connection is causation. Maybe, just maybe, its not the fact that there is a registry, but the fact that the kind of people who voluntarily endure the cost and hassle are simply not the kind of people who commit violent crimes with firearms in the first place??

(note the one verifiable murder committed with a legally owned machine gun was committed by a POLICE OFFICER (and not in the line of duty)).

The Pulse Nightclub killer was a licensed security guard, who had taken and passed all the psychological tests.....

Absolutely 0 (zero) gun crimes have been committed by prison inmates within prison walls, with legally owned machineguns, or any other type of legally owned firearms within the past century. (at least)

Why isn't living in the general prison population considered to be a safe thing???

Its got nothing to do with guns...

 

[doofus47]

After a cursory reading, my primary question is "how is your license validation scheme" different from the current background check scheme?
In both cases, the gov't checks databases. In your scheme, the user must be entered into 1 DB. plus. In both cases, people could be left out of the DB or added to the DB incorrectly.

Neither the existing system nor the proposed system solves the problem of freewill. We're in the current pickle b/c someone decided it was time to vent frustrations against his fellow citizens. When that happens under the proposed system, what is the failsafe to ensure that this anomalous behavior won't dis-allow the legal right of all others? In fact, it seems easier to sweep the field when all firearms are registered and there's a mandatory jail term for citizens owning a previously legal but currently non-registered firearm.

I see also that the proposed license would have "revocation" options for people accused of committing crimes. We already have that scheme. Again, this would be a similar technology applied at the Federal policy level with all of the waffling and vagaries that has historically seen.

I'm not seeing the beauty of something new here.

I"d much prefer that the courts would do their job and stop the legal nibbling and that people opposed to the 2nd Amendment would just recognize that they need to move away.

 

[riffraff]

People with ample resources have options that "poor people" do not have.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because some connection can be found or manufactured between two different things that one must cause the other.

If you stretch parameters enough, you can make a correlation between anything that happens on this planet. The Butterfly Effect. Chaos Theory. Call it anything you want, you can find some kind of connection.

That does NOT mean the connection is causation. Maybe, just maybe, its not the fact that there is a registry, but the fact that the kind of people who voluntarily endure the cost and hassle are simply not the kind of people who commit violent crimes with firearms in the first place??

(note the one verifiable murder committed with a legally owned machine gun was committed by a POLICE OFFICER (and not in the line of duty)).

The Pulse Nightclub killer was a licensed security guard, who had taken and passed all the psychological tests.....

Absolutely 0 (zero) gun crimes have been committed by prison inmates within prison walls, with legally owned machineguns, or any other type of legally owned firearms within the past century. (at least)

Why isn't living in the general prison population considered to be a safe thing???

Its got nothing to do with guns...

The problem with statistics - in a college engineering sort of statistics class I was told "if the numbers do not work out how you want them to, you just run them different ways until they do".

Lies, dirty lies, and statistics - not that they do not amount to anything but it takes a truly objective/isolated study in a scientific manner to get down to the bottom of things, which sometimes ends up being there is no correlation. If you start with a theory and try to prove the theory often you can make up correlations to that affect.

I suspect a lot of what the anti and pro gun groups "prove" via statistics actually falls into the no-correlation bucket - they typically make 100% contradictory arguments using what is probably the same data; both are wrong but we need the pro gun groups to do that for PR I suppose...

My stance I don't care if guns make me safer or 300 X more at risk to be brutally murdered - either way is fine I'd rather have them .

 

[rwilson452]

According to Samuel Clemens AKA Mark Twain. There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.