• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Federal Gun Owner License

paulhutch said:
That reminds me, you apply for an FID card with your local police department so it's pretty easy compared to getting a drivers license where you have to travel to the DMV and wait forever.
Click to expand...

I think the process does need to be easy. Easier than getting a drivers license, for sure.
 
Dr. Keith said:
That is why I would prefer a federal system, or at least a federal requirement that every state have a system that meats minimum requirements.
Click to expand...
If we have a federal license it should be recognized by all jurisdictions. Otherwise why have one?
 
So much silliness here.

"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."

So, if anyone can prove they belong to a well regulated militia (or not well regulated like in most of the Middle East) they can have all the arms they want, even if they don't need them for personal defense.

Of course they could always join the National Guard if they want to be part of a militia and play with big guns designed to kill people only; assuming they are not afraid of their gummint.
 
Elind said:
So much silliness here.

"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."

So, if anyone can prove they belong to a well regulated militia (or not well regulated like in most of the Middle East) they can have all the arms they want, even if they don't need them for personal defense.

Of course they could always join the National Guard if they want to be part of a militia and play with big guns designed to kill people only; assuming they are not afraid of their gummint.
Click to expand...
That bit has been argued to death and past by people with more argumentative zeal than I'm going to bother with, but it seems reasonable to point out that many people, not all of them gun nuts, have pointed out that providing a reason for a right does not limit the exercise of that right to the exercise of the reason. A militia, as opposed to a standing army, is generally ad hoc. The grammar can as easily be thought suggestive that a militia will be easier to form from an armed citizenry than an unarmed one. If the founding fathers had wanted to limit gun ownership to an existing organization, they could easily have written it that way.

This is not to say there are not many good arguments for better and more effective gun laws. It's just that this isn't one of them.
 
bruto said:
That bit has been argued to death and past by people with more argumentative zeal than I'm going to bother with, but it seems reasonable to point out that many people, not all of them gun nuts, have pointed out that providing a reason for a right does not limit the exercise of that right to the exercise of the reason. A militia, as opposed to a standing army, is generally ad hoc. The grammar can as easily be thought suggestive that a militia will be easier to form from an armed citizenry than an unarmed one. If the founding fathers had wanted to limit gun ownership to an existing organization, they could easily have written it that way.

This is not to say there are not many good arguments for better and more effective gun laws. It's just that this isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

Yes lawyers, and pretend ones like Scalia, are good at parsing words to meanings that they want, not to mention ignoring the realities today versus then. After all he is the pundit for the constitution being "dead" and forever locked in stone under the ground.

Let's face it, the NRA are political fanatics on single rights issues that have nothing compatible with the realities of a complex civil society.

Every argument I have ever seen comes down to, in the final analysis, as a matter of them versus everyone else of their fellow citizens who don't agree, and they back it up with their gunz.

Pitiful.
 
Elind said:
Yes lawyers, and pretend ones like Scalia, are good at parsing words to meanings that they want, not to mention ignoring the realities today versus then. After all he is the pundit for the constitution being "dead" and forever locked in stone under the ground.

Let's face it, the NRA are political fanatics on single rights issues that have nothing compatible with the realities of a complex civil society.

Every argument I have ever seen comes down to, in the final analysis, as a matter of them versus everyone else of their fellow citizens who don't agree, and they back it up with their gunz.

Pitiful.
Click to expand...
All that may be true, but it does not make the "militia" constitutional argument a good one.
 
bruto said:
All that may be true, but it does not make the "militia" constitutional argument a good one.
Click to expand...

It sure sounds so to me. Obviously those who use the equally obviously trivial interpretation of a less than forward looking sentence don't agree that at the time of writing without a standing army, then the individual right was necessary.

Does anyone other than fanatical patriots think that our liberties these days rest on "well organized" militias?

Often the same patriots refer to Switzerland which has something similar where military (EG National Guard) members have their weapons at home (some weapons, not assault weapons with unlimited ammo). What they always ignore is that not only are those weapons tracked in detail and so is every bullet in their care.
 
Elind said:
It sure sounds so to me. Obviously those who use the equally obviously trivial interpretation of a less than forward looking sentence don't agree that at the time of writing without a standing army, then the individual right was necessary.

Does anyone other than fanatical patriots think that our liberties these days rest on "well organized" militias?

Often the same patriots refer to Switzerland which has something similar where military (EG National Guard) members have their weapons at home (some weapons, not assault weapons with unlimited ammo). What they always ignore is that not only are those weapons tracked in detail and so is every bullet in their care.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point, but it's a bit of a derail, and I do not have the energy to continue this endless side issue, except to say that I think you're missing the basic point.

Because I believe in principle X, I assert right Y. The reason for the right is not the limiting boundary of the right. Maybe it should have been, but that's another argument. As phrased, it's not.
 
bruto said:
I think you're missing the point, but it's a bit of a derail, and I do not have the energy to continue this endless side issue, except to say that I think you're missing the basic point.

Because I believe in principle X, I assert right Y. The reason for the right is not the limiting boundary of the right. Maybe it should have been, but that's another argument. As phrased, it's not.
Click to expand...

No I get the point, I just think the logic is flawed outside of a mind represented by the Scalias of the country. You weren't an intern there were you?

Let's just put it like this:

https://www.facebook.com/dailykos/photos/a.416444264254.190398.43179984254/10153747679834255/?type=3
 
Elind said:
No I get the point, I just think the logic is flawed outside of a mind represented by the Scalias of the country. You weren't an intern there were you?

Let's just put it like this:

https://www.facebook.com/dailykos/photos/a.416444264254.190398.43179984254/10153747679834255/?type=3
Click to expand...
No, I'm sorry, but if you think that quote is relevant you do indeed miss the point. The question is not whether the constitution is right. The question is not whether the statement is wrong. The question is only whether the statement in the constitution requires membership in a standing militia in order to own a gun. I believe many people on both sides of the issue have agreed that it does not. Some believe that this is good, and some that it is bad. Believing it to be bad does not make it say what it does not say. Stating the reason for a right is not stating the conditions under which that right exists.

p.s. No I am not connected with Scalia whom I consider an utter fool and worse.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
And that is a point that dies bear some consideration. I'm not sure the best way to reduce resistance.

Maybe Chuck is onto something with it being a state issued permit instead of federal, but with federal backend to comply with current background check laws.

Maybe make it easier for gun buyers and sellers if they have the permit, instant purchase rather than waiting periods for background checks.

I think it has to be more carrot than stick, that is for sure.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am going to back off my assertion a bit. If you are not going to go onto private property to arrest people with guns, then there will be considerably less violence.
 
bruto said:
No, I'm sorry, but if you think that quote is relevant you do indeed miss the point. The question is not whether the constitution is right. The question is not whether the statement is wrong. The question is only whether the statement in the constitution requires membership in a standing militia in order to own a gun. I believe many people on both sides of the issue have agreed that it does not. Some believe that this is good, and some that it is bad. Believing it to be bad does not make it say what it does not say. Stating the reason for a right is not stating the conditions under which that right exists.

p.s. No I am not connected with Scalia whom I consider an utter fool and worse.
Click to expand...

Well, I appreciate that you state your opinion. But why don't you also just state that you agree that this interpretation that we presumably agree on in principle belongs to the stupidest in our society instead of restating their arguments?
 
smartcooky said:
OFF TOPIC ASIDE

Let me tell you one way you can get on the no fly list.

A work colleague (Tim) was travelling to Ireland to work. It was on short notice and he only had five months left to run on his NZ passport before it expired, so he checked with the Irish Consular Office in Auckland and they said thats OK as three months was the minimum. He didn't have time to apply for and wait for a renewal, so he decided he would take care of that when he got to Dublin. He booked his flight and headed off a week later to Ireland via LAX.

The stop in LAX was to be transit only (refuel and restock, dropping off passengers going to USA and picking up new ones for the remainder of the journey. However when US authorities saw that Tim's passport only had four months left, they took him away and interrogated him. Why was he trying to enter the USA with a passport that had less than their mandatory six weeks minimum required by USDOS? No amount of explaining that he was not trying to enter the USA, and that he was only transiting would convince them. He told them Ireland only required three weeks and that he would only ever be in the transit lounge, but they would not listen, He even pointed out to them that he had a USDOS issued Transit Visa which showed he was only transiting as per the USDOS rules. They apparently didn't like him telling them their own Laws and they continued to interrogate him for a few more hours, so long that he missed his flight. They then said that since he missed his flight, he was now in the USA illegally (without a Visitor Visa) and they were going to deport him. He was held in a holding cell overnight, and deported back to NZ on the next available flight. Because he was deported, he is now in the US no-fly list.

He now has to travel to Europe west-about through Asia. He has vowed never to have anything to with "those *********** yanks" again!

[off topic aside]

And that folks, is one way to get yourself on the no-fly list by doing nothing illegal.
Click to expand...

I've got a better example than that.

Man is a principle in a corporation that is a prime defense contractor.

Man finds himself on Watch list/no fly list.

Man has contacts, takes a couple of years to sort out.

So sorry says the feds, same name as former IRA bad boy, sorry for any inconvenience.

No further information was provided by the feds.
 
I assume those examples are true, which is bad and the system should be reviewed but my question remains.

Should there be a no fly list at all?

If the GOP thinks that should not prevent the other 90 (99.99?) percent who have reason to be there from buying assault weapons, then surely we should abolish the no fly list and let known terrorists fly at will.

Right?
 
Elind said:
Well, I appreciate that you state your opinion. But why don't you also just state that you agree that this interpretation that we presumably agree on in principle belongs to the stupidest in our society instead of restating their arguments?
Click to expand...
Mostly because I prefer to consider things one at a time. A bad argument is not a good one, and the fact that a fool has an opinion, while it does it no good, does it no harm either. I also, despite many liberal leanings, am not utterly against gun ownership, and while I do not have an answer to how it can be done, I think there should be some way to reconcile at least some vestige of the constitutional right with some vestige of public safety.
 
applecorped said:
Where do I get my free speech license?
Click to expand...

QFT.

Unless someone is suggesting something that would be constitutional, or is promoting amending the US constitution (and how that's politically feasible), I don't really see the point in arguing about how good or bad a particular scheme would be.

That said, in terms of some restrictions e.g. fully automatic weapons (machine guns) there is essentially federal licensing since 1934.
 
applecorped said:
Where do I get my free speech license?
Click to expand...
Questions like this illustrate the absurdity of equating the right to free speech with the "right" to bear arms. They should not be treated as equally binding under the law (which arguably the US Constitution does).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom