Gun control poll--please read OP for assumptions.

[Cicero]

You really do need to learn how to use the quote function. It is not that difficult.

Looks fine to me. You do not see your comments in the quote box?

Are you stating that one supreme court decision has ended the debate over the extent of individual rights to firearm possession guaranteed by the second amendment? Or that this interpretation could not be revised by a future court?

It is called precedent, like Roe V. Wade. Or would you like that one overturned?

What records gun dealers keep are of little relevance to a police officer attempting to determine whether a weapon is legal or not. I wish the police to have that power without subpoenaing a gun dealer's records. And the records, if any, of subsequent sales of gun from one owner to another. Would you have the policeman who pulls over a car call up the car dealer in order to determine whether the car has been stolen?

What do you mean if a weapon is "legal?" If it is an NFA weapon, it is legal if the person has the form 4/5 with them to prove that it is theirs. Other than those types of weapons, it is up to the state and local authorities to determine if the weapon is the type that can legally be owned or carried by a private citizen. Unless the person has committed a crime with the weapon, what does it matter if the weapon is registered? you keep focusing on the firearm and not the individual. Why is that?

 

[Cicero]

Of course, I have never stated that individuals should not be allowed to procure firearms. Only that they should be licensed to do so and the firearms should be registered. Do you think that police forces give weapons to officers without making sure that they go through extensive training in their safe handling and use? Do you think that they don't track which officer is in possession of which weapons?

Did you miss all the information in this thread regarding ineptitude by police when handling their weapons despite this supposed "extensive" training you imagine they go through.

The reason they track the serial number of the weapons issued to a police officer is because it is not their personal property as it is owned by the force.

 

[Cicero]

It's the chance you take. If you don't know the guy you're selling a gun to well enough to feel secure he isn't a convicted felon then you deserve the sentence you get when a crime is committed with the firearm you gave him. I'm against straw purchasing as much as the next guy and am glad there are punishments in place for such things.

But as long as you're above board, it's a bit of a comfort knowing gun sales CAN be handled without the government having to be informed. I've never sold a gun, but I bought my first one from a friend I trusted enough to know he wasn't selling me anything he bought from the back of a van. The fact I didn't have to pay an extra $40 to broker it through an FFL and fill out a bunch of paperwork to alert the man was pure gravy.

Think that's a problem? Then stay north of the Mason-Dixon line. Trust me, we're all packing down here.

But how did your friend know that you didn't have any criminal record? Has he known you all of your life?

 

[applecorped]

There are systems that will reduce the number, otherwise, criminals would be equally well-armed everywhere in the world. We know that is not the case.

It would reduce the numbers available disproportionally to people who obey the law.

 

[gdnp]

What do you mean if a weapon is "legal?" If it is an NFA weapon, it is legal if the person has the form 4/5 with them to prove that it is theirs. Other than those types of weapons, it is up to the state and local authorities to determine if the weapon is the type that can legally be owned or carried by a private citizen. Unless the person has committed a crime with the weapon, what does it matter if the weapon is registered? you keep focusing on the firearm and not the individual. Why is that?

Nope. You still can't get the quotes right. As demonstrated by the fact that the statement to which I am responding is not included in the quoted portion of your post above.

That being said, Let's focus on the gun owner. Or for analogy the car owner. Why don't we just allow anyone who wants to to drive when they turn 16? After all, race car drivers have accidents all the time, so obviously being a highly trained driver does not do away with accidents. We can do away with drivers licenses. Then anyone can drive who hasn't had their driving privileges revoked. If a driver is pulled over, then the policeman can just ask him who he is--he will have no identification--and then the policeman can check that name against 50 individual state databases to make sure that he isn't driving illegally.

Sound good to you?

 

[leftysergeant]

I do feel that there should exist, for every serviceable firearm, a title, like that which is attached to every motor vehicle, and that persons who posess firearms should be required to demonstrate competency in their use and knowledge of laws concerning their use, just as we do for motror vehicles, for exactly the same reasons.

 

[Cicero]

Nope. You still can't get the quotes right. As demonstrated by the fact that the statement to which I am responding is not included in the quoted portion of your post above.

That being said, Let's focus on the gun owner. Or for analogy the car owner. Why don't we just allow anyone who wants to to drive when they turn 16? After all, race car drivers have accidents all the time, so obviously being a highly trained driver does not do away with accidents. We can do away with drivers licenses. Then anyone can drive who hasn't had their driving privileges revoked. If a driver is pulled over, then the policeman can just ask him who he is--he will have no identification--and then the policeman can check that name against 50 individual state databases to make sure that he isn't driving illegally.

Sound good to you?

The car analogy doesn't track. A driver's license for driving a vehicle and owning a vehicle are two different things. Some states, Texas, North Carolina, etc, there are no age restrictions for an individual to be recorded as the owner of a vehicle.

In most states, the minimum age for purchasing a handgun is 21, long guns and long gun ammunition may be sold only to persons 18 years of age or older.

Obtaining a driver's license is a privilege, not a right. See the 2nd Amendment about rights. Automobiles are driven on streets and highways that are maintained and regulated by the city/state. This is why the vehicle and the drivers require registrations, license plates and licenses for the drivers. Yet, does the fact that all automobiles must have up to date registrations to operate legally on the streets eliminate accident fatalities? Does the fact that all drivers must be licensed eliminate accident fatalities? In order to be cited for a vehicle infraction by the police, the driver of the vehicle would already be caught in a violation.

How does this apply to firearms? When would a person be compelled to produce a firearm registration? When a cop knocks on the door of their dwelling, enters without a warrant, searches the house, then finds a weapon, not a controlled NFA weapon, but a handgun/rifle/shotgun, and demands the resident produce registrations for all?

If you are pulled over by a cop in any state for whatever infraction, and they have reasonable suspicion to search your vehicle and find a weapon, they can proceed to cite the person if the firearm is in violation of local laws, as in not secured in the trunk, is loaded, etc. How does a registration law help the cops here?

Explain how registering the serial numbers of every single firearm in America in one giant central database is going to have any impact on the number and frequency of crimes committed with firearms? Your enthusiasm for government run bureaucracies is not shared by anyone who has dealt with the incompetence and snails pace associated with them. So what is really your agenda behind this registration crusade? The fact that there are already 300 million firearms in circulation that are not registered renders this idea not only moot, but inane.

New York City requirements for all firearms:

Permit to Purchase
Registration of Firearms
Licensing of Owners
Permit to Carry

Yet how has this reduced criminals using firearms in Manhattan or the rest of New York where all the above is required for handguns? Even if one wishes to comply with the NYC regs, the deck is stacked to make it just about impossible for the average person to cut threw the red tape to get the necessary permits and licenses.

Imagine if all states followed the NYC regs. The granting of licenses and permits would be made using the same arbitrary rules, i.e., only the connected would ever get to first base on a firearm purchase permit application. Of course, you would no doubt applaud such a system.

BTW: Have you owned or even fired any firearm in your life? You appear to be completely unfamiliar about the subject.

 

[gnome]

So, only conservative/liberals/non-US citizens are allowed to vote? What about those of us who think the conservative/liberal paradigm is pure BS. I am certainly personally liberal, but I am also just as certainly not a "liberal".

Your opinion is of course valuable, but the poll numbers themselves are a study of the diversity of opinions among those that consider themselves to fall into the mainstream of liberalism or conservatism. To me it's transparently obvious that those who don't feel they fit into either are going to have opinions all over the board on this matter.

 

[Cicero]

Not from a gun (well, in the right circumstances, yes, but if you can't control the circumstances, control your weapon). In those situations, I have never heard of a victim being worried about how the bad guy got his gun/knife/cosh, just what he did to the victim with it or due to it's presence.

At the present, this poll seems to indicate that the majority of both conservatives and liberals are satisfied with the current firearm laws on the books.

 

[Hittman]

Obtaining a driver's license is a privilege, not a right. See the 2nd Amendment about rights.

This is a point that is constantly overlooked in these kids of discussions.

I can destroy your reputation with a web site. I can ruin your life with a newspaper. I can make your neighbors fear and hate you with a poster. Should the government, then, require a permit to put up a site, start a paper or put up posters? No, because then it becomes a privilege, not a right. You have a right to create web sites, newspapers and posters. If you abuse that right and use it to hurt people, action can (and should) be taken against you. But that doesn't mean we have to restrict everyone's rights because of the few abuses.

Likewise, you have a right to keep and bear arms. If you abuse that right, you should suffer the consequences. But when we force everyone to get permits, licenses, and run various governmental gauntlets it's no longer a right, but a privilege, and the government can revoke a privilege whenever they feel like it.

 

[gdnp]

At the present, this poll seems to indicate that the majority of both conservatives and liberals are satisfied with the current firearm laws on the books.

Then clearly you need to learn the difference between a plurality and a majority.

 

[gumboot]

By the same logic, burglaries of firearm retail stores also occur when the store is closed. Good reason to outlaw firearm stores?

Strawman much?

Perhaps you have heard of intruders hoping to catch the resident of the dwelling home, such as rapists? A women with a firearm poses a considerable deterrent to becoming a victim.

And most attacks of that type occur while the victim is asleep. They wake up with the attacker already on top of them, more often than not.

New Zealand is not as zealous about denying its citizens rights to firearms as you seem to be.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/new-zealand/news/article.cfm?l_id=71&objectid=10557436

Firearm ownership is a privilege in New Zealand, not a right. I'd agree with the judge that a loss of his license would have been unfair in that context. I like your second strawman. Perhaps you might want to pay attention to what I'm actually saying next time, so that your responses have some relevance.

 

[Cicero]

Strawman much?

Seems to be right on point, unless that is considered "strawman" now a days.

And most attacks of that type occur while the victim is asleep. They wake up with the attacker already on top of them, more often than not.

So a female should be denied the right to protect herself with a firearm because the rapist may already be on top of her? Then when was she supposed to phone for the police to prevent the rape?

Firearm ownership is a privilege in New Zealand, not a right. I'd agree with the judge that a loss of his license would have been unfair in that context. I like your second strawman. Perhaps you might want to pay attention to what I'm actually saying next time, so that your responses have some relevance.

Well, it is a right in the U.S. Yet, New Zealand also allows for ownership of full auto weapons. Are you as gung ho on gun control in your own country as you are about it in the U.S.?

 

[Cicero]

Then clearly you need to learn the difference between a plurality and a majority.

It sure looks like your proposals are definitely in the minority regardless of political ideology.

Care to regale us with your experience with firearms that influenced your opinions?

 

[Cicero]

This is a point that is constantly overlooked in these kids of discussions.

I can destroy your reputation with a web site. I can ruin your life with a newspaper. I can make your neighbors fear and hate you with a poster. Should the government, then, require a permit to put up a site, start a paper or put up posters? No, because then it becomes a privilege, not a right. You have a right to create web sites, newspapers and posters. If you abuse that right and use it to hurt people, action can (and should) be taken against you. But that doesn't mean we have to restrict everyone's rights because of the few abuses.

Likewise, you have a right to keep and bear arms. If you abuse that right, you should suffer the consequences. But when we force everyone to get permits, licenses, and run various governmental gauntlets it's no longer a right, but a privilege, and the government can revoke a privilege whenever they feel like it.

A not so subtle concept that seems to escape gdnp.

 

[gumboot]

Seems to be right on point, unless that is considered "strawman" now a days.

No, it's completely off the point. In fact I suspect you don't even have any idea what the point is. Let me ask you something; why did I bring up the point that houses are normally robbed when occupants are absent?

So a female should be denied the right to protect herself with a firearm because the rapist may already be on top of her? Then when was she supposed to phone for the police to prevent the rape?

The point being that a woman is not in a position to protect herself from a rapist in that situation, because by the time she's aware that she's being attacked it's too late.

Well, it is a right in the U.S. Yet, New Zealand also allows for ownership of full auto weapons. Are you as gung ho on gun control in your own country as you are about it in the U.S.?

You didn't even read my posts, did you?

 

[Drudgewire]

The point being that a woman is not in a position to protect herself from a rapist in that situation, because by the time she's aware that she's being attacked it's too late.

Not always. The fact is sometimes they are awakened and sometimes they aren't. I'd like to see evidence of the claim "they're usually asleep," but even if that's the case there are going to be times where they hear glass breaking and can get to the firearm in their nightstand before it's too late.

 

[Bikewer]

The local serial rapist dubbed "The South-side Rapist" used the same MO in each crime. He determined beforehand that the victim was living alone, and entered the house through (mostly) basement windows that are notoriously easy to defeat, even if secured.
Even with the local media broadcasting near-panic as the list of victims increased, Rabbitt had no problem finding easy-to-enter homes and victims who had taken no precautions whatever.

In my 10 years with the local county department, when residential burglaries were the number one crime, the only people who installed alarm systems were folks who had already been burglarized...

 

[gumboot]

Lets not forget the majority of rape victims know their attacker, and are in a place of perceived safety and comfort at the time of the attack.

Given the undeniably high rate of deaths and injuries that occur in a non-self defensive circumstance as a result of readily accessible loaded firearms, it seems illogical to argue that doing so is a good idea for a very very small number of incidents where a victim may or may not be able to protect themselves with a readily accessible loaded firearm.

The simple statistical fact is if you have a loaded accessible firearm in your house, that weapon is far, far more likely to be used to kill or inflict injury on you or a member of your family than it is to protect you.

 

[gdnp]

It sure looks like your proposals are definitely in the minority regardless of political ideology.

As is every other opinion, since no opinion reaches 50%. In fact, the "liberal satisfied" and "conservative satisfied" add up to a whopping 28%.

Care to regale us with your experience with firearms that influenced your opinions?

No.

BTW, does one need to have been raped to have an opinion on rape laws? Even to know someone who has been raped? Then why would my firearms history be at all relevant here?

A not so subtle concept that seems to escape gdnp.

Only because it is wrong. A concept that seems to have escaped you.

The first amendment guarantees the right of free assembly. Yet the government can require you to obtain a permit, can they not?

Rights are not absolute. If gun ownership was an absolute right, then the government could not deny felons the right to own guns.