My solution to gun insanity

[libtodeath]

keep the 2nd amendment but make everyone that wants to be a part of the "well regulated militia" put their name on it.
They train,they respond to orders,their guns are registered and tracked.

For everyone else that wants to hunt and shoot to their little hearts desire they can pay a fee along with the license to sign one out of a official armory.
Just like a library there is a time allowed and if not turned back in on time a fine is charged.
Commit a crime with an official gun or one that is not registered and tracked you go away for a long time or forever in prison.
Release petty drug offenders who are taking up cell space but never committed a real crime to make room.

It fixes the problem quickly and is in keeping with the constitution.

[Hoyt]

1. If only American gun cultists could be satisfied with that. But guns are an extension of themselves,

and they can't share their "precious" (as some call em).

[libtodeath]

2. As daily storys of shootings become in focus they will be on shakier and shakier ground

[Hoyt]

21. I hope you are right. At a minimum we can change how gun culture is viewed.

It took awhile to force smokers, bigots/racists, misogynists, etc., to at least confront the impact of their actions on society. Some said screw society, others changed.

And, to our gun cultists -- I admit, I'm a "bigot" when it comes to people who carry guns in public, accumulate "assault" type weapons, promote more guns in society, practice to shoot people, support NRA (as members or free-riders), etc.

[libtodeath]

22. x1000

[nick of time]

23. And it's people like you and LaPierre that make it

almost impossible to have an honest and sane debate on meaningful gun control.
Both sides of this charged debate are guilty of it.

[Hoyt]

26. Nick, I think you are a bit closer to LaPierre -- he promotes guns.

[nick of time]

29. True about LaPierre promoting more guns.

And you constantly demean gun owners, spread false statements, how does this help with an honest debate?

[Hoyt]

32. Got any links to false statements. You might not like my opinion, but that is a different matter.

[nick of time]

36. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022304410#post1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022304410#post26

I am in no way even close to that asshat.

[Hoyt]

51. Neither am I. You need to learn the difference in lies and opinions. And

although "asshat" is an opinion, it's not nice. Enjoy your guns.

[nick of time]

52. Something you need to do.

However, I tire of your games.

[nick of time]

3. The word "precious" comes from your compatriots.

I have yet to see anyone other than a few anti gun people here call them that.
I would prefer that all this name calling on both sides of the issue stop so that we can discuss meaningful solutions to the violence in this country, including new laws.

[libtodeath]

5. When any and every common sense measure to stop the carnage is rejected

i think precious is a perfectly appropriate word regarding gun nuts.

[nick of time]

6. But that's not what Hoyt said,

he said that gun owners refer to their guns as precious and I just pointed out the fallacy of his statement.

[libtodeath]

9. Whatever

wordsmithing is a lame game.

[nick of time]

11. So you admit he was wrong?

I'm all for a sane and honest debate about gun control in this country but when extremists from both sides of the issue throw out false statements, how is that good?

[libtodeath]

13. Have seen your posts and they are mostly from the NRA playbook so that does in sane and honest.

[nick of time]

17. Horseshit.

I have constantly stated that I'm all for sensible new laws that will actually help prevent another Sandy Hook atrocity.
Things like background checks on all firearms transactions, a national firearms ID card, much like the IL. FOID, better funding for the states to report all prohibited persons, better funding for mental health care, a magazine limit of 10 rounds for all firearms, just to name a few.
So your saying that I am mostly spouting NRA talking points is pure crap.

[libtodeath]

19. You are pro gun,just admit it.

[nick of time]

20. Whatever you say.

You and LaPierre are exactly the reason why we can't have an honest and sane debate in this country about gun control.

[Comrade Grumpy]

40. What does that even mean?

The poster reeled off a bunch of gun control measures he could support. Do you have a substantive response?

[Duckhunter935]

24. I have found out

you can not reason with some people on this board. I have a few weapons and I am told I am a gun loving shithead and an NRA Troll. Unless you are for full confiscation some just can not be pleased.

[nick of time]

25. I just don't understand

how extremists on both sides of this highly charged issue think that they're helping by throwing out these false statements.

[libtodeath]

27. What false statement did I make?

What is a well regulated militia to you?

[nick of time]

31. Your false statement claiming that I am pro gun.

And that I'm quoting from the NRA playbook, that false statement.

[TheKentuckian]

67. A rationale rather than operative. It is the right of the people, not the militia, that shall not be

infringed.

Typically, it is defined as able bodied males between 16-46 (more ore less) properly equipped and drilled with military grade equipment but militia membership is not a prerequisite for the right to keep and bear arms. No one has to ask permission or borrow or show cause because it is an individual right and an enumerated individual right.

[Hoyt]

30. No one has ever called you a "s#@thead," despite your support of more guns.

But his is a Democratic site and we are not talking about lethal weapons used for shooting ducks.

[Duckhunter935]

35. So you know so much of how I am treated

"DUCKHUNTER" is a term used an Army air defense soldier, I do not hunt. I have been called many things and I have also put out positions of what I am for to help limit weapons killings. I just do not believe the new AWB will make any difference if you are banning weapons for looks and not function.

[Hoyt]

43. Well, I'm for banning semi-autos however they look.

Those are the guns that are made and marketed to appeal to gun cultists' baser instincts.

I agree with you that simply banning guns based upon looks is not enough. However, I would ban those who buy guns for looks from buying them. If they are attracted to that crap, they aren't hunters or target shooters.

I'd also ban sights and such that some of our gungeoneers say are necessary for "clearing rooms" -- like they are in a swat squad, or war zone.

[Duckhunter935]

37. Where do you see I support more guns?

The talk of a ban caused more gun sales and to people that are not trained in the use of firearms. I have 20+ years of military experience and have gone through training and federal, state and county background checks for a CCW permit. And no I do not carry most of the time.

[Hoyt]

48. You know what, military weapons training is all but useless in our country as a civilian.

Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Nowadays, military use of guns is mostly laying down a barrage. Don't really think that is effective in a civilian situation -- unless collateral damage doesn't matter to you.

I am glad to hear you don't carry all the time, none of the time would be better.

[Duckhunter935]

55. Not how I was trained

we always had practiced if we had limited ammunition. Make your shots count. Only time we used full auto on the M16 was to get used to how it felt and also how it is not accurate and wasted ammunition. That is mainly why the M16A2 went to burst to save ammunition. You can only carry so much ammunition. That is also why the army got away from the larger 7.62 round. Soldiers can carry more, however it was less powerful and does not have the range.

[Hoyt]

60. Well here, you would normally not fire and if you do one shot is enough (assuming

you even need a gun in the first place, which is highly unlikely). I'm sorry, but this is not a war zone and will if a bunch of right wing extremists (who are armed to the teeth because the gun culture was too stupid to support gun restrictions) try to take over (which they will quickly learn is not possible).

[pkdu]

44. Nick, despite your join date and fav group, you do indeed sound open to real discussion

All that you mention above should be a starting point not a maximum tho. Thanks for genuine ideas offered ( and I forgive the horseshit comment, I've done same or worse on my end)

[nick of time]

54. Thanks.

And I agree, there are alot of things that can and should be done to control the gun violence in this country, but when both sides of the issue throw out flame bombs, it makes it damn near impossible to move the country foward.
I do own firearms, but I'm very open to sensible laws.

[pkdu]

57. You are most welcome ...that said....

Fuck the 49ers. Go Ravens.








Just kidding...couldnt help it.

[nick of time]

58. LOL.

My wife pretty much agrees with you, she's a HUGE fan of Michael Orr.
You can imagine the atmosphere in our house today.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. And now you've become one of the "some".

I knew it was only a matter of time. Irrational fear is catchy that way...

[libtodeath]

8. Your point?

[Hoyt]

16. Just couldn't think of a more apt word/phrase while trying to do several things at once.

I'll be glad to consider an alternative if you have a suggestion.

[Travis_0004]

7. No.

I'm not even going to debate this post, because it has a .000000000000000000000000000001% chance of passing.

[libtodeath]

10. So just give up then?

[slackmaster]

12. That's a fine authoritarian wet dream you have there

[libtodeath]

14. Nice strawman

[slackmaster]

15. It's no strawman. You think guns should all be in an "official armory" rather than privately owned.

Authoritarian.

[libtodeath]

18. Can anyone operate a resteraunt without a licence or permit?

i that authoritarian too?
How about a drivers license...damn government making me register,buy a license and make sure it is safe.

Nothing about this would be unconstitutional in the least,the militia that is mentioned can own a firearm with regulations.
The public at large cannot,same as we ban bombs etc.

[Duckhunter935]

28. well untill you get

United Sates Supreme Court to rule that way it will not happen. The latest rulings specifically state you can have a handgun in your home for self defense and it is a constitutionally protected right, Rifles have not been specifically called out as far as I know. Fully automatic machine guns are limited but fully legal to own and operate. Operating a restaurant or driving a car on public streets is not. I do not need to register or license a car I drive on my property and I do not need a restaurant license to feed my family, only if I sell to the public.

[libtodeath]

33. The court can change its interpretation though and that requires electing progressive candidates

if one can already see a difference between a machine gun and a hand gun then the absolute "right" does not exist.

[Duckhunter935]

38. until then

It does for hand guns and that is causing the most problems not rifles or even less scary looking rifles.

[Marengo]

65. And if a "progressive" court doesn't interpret the 2nd amendment

as requiring militia service as a condition for the private ownership of firearms?

[cherokeeprogressive]

68. How does the legal concept of stare decisis figure into your reasoning that the 2nd Amendment will

be reinterpreted if you can simply come up with the right judges? If memory serves me correctly, the subject of stare decisis always comes up in Supreme Court confirmation hearings, normally in the context of whether or not the nominated judge thinks Roe v. Wade is settled law and the nominee always responds in the affirmative when asked if they believe it is.

I ask because District of Columbia v. Heller was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. McDonald v. Chicago simply served to clear up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

"Stare decisis is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

Is stare decisis a legal concept you would throw out in order to achieve your goals in regards to gun control?

[dkf]

34. Why don't you just admit you would like to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

I wish people would just be truthful.

[libtodeath]

41. Did you not read what I wrote?

but typical rw response from you.

[dkf]

53. So in your heart of hearts, if you had to vote to keep the second amendment you would vote yes?

[libtodeath]

63. That is a perfectly impossible question to answer because if it was to be used to

promote unregulated ownership of any weapon one wants as the rw does then no i wouldn`t and doubt the founders would either.
If it is used in a sane and responsible way then yes.
Just another foolish strawman attempt.

[dkf]

69. It is impossible for every gun to be used in a sane way as that is in the hands of the person with

the gun.

Unless we do away with all insane people (who that would encompass I have no idea), which is a pretty ridiculous idea, there will always be insane uses.

[SayWut]

39. How about keeping it real?

I have to admit, some of the suggestions, ideas and solutions to gun control or gun violence posted here can be amusing.
Oftentimes they range from the foolish, laughable, patently absurd and totally unconstitutional.
In fairness though, every now and then (like a blind squirrel finding an acorn), some sound and workable ideas are posted.
Using your post as an example, there's a little bit of everything for everyone.

Exhibit A:
"Commit a crime with an official gun or one that is not registered and tracked you go away for a long time or forever in prison.
Release petty drug offenders who are taking up cell space but never committed a real crime to make room."

I have no idea what this "official gun" you speak of is (officially what), or what would constitute an 'unofficial gun', but that aside (well that, and being "registered" and "tracked&quot , you hit the nail on the head with "Commit a crime with an official gun or one that is not registered and tracked you go away for a long time or forever in prison.
Release petty drug offenders who are taking up cell space but never committed a real crime to make room." Is an acceptable and effective move that I believe both sides could agree upon.

Now enter the foolish, laughable, patently absurd and totally unconstitutional scene of your act.

Exhibit B: "keep the 2nd amendment but make everyone that wants to be a part of the "well regulated militia" put their name on it.
They train,they respond to orders,their guns are registered and tracked.

For everyone else that wants to hunt and shoot to their little hearts desire they can pay a fee along with the license to sign one out of a official armory.
Just like a library there is a time allowed and if not turned back in on time a fine is charged."

"Official armories"? "Fee and license"? "Train and respond"?

I'll forgo the ridicule and laughter on that for know and simply ask you (and others), do you, have you ever taken the time to read and understand the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and recent Supreme Court decisions upholding it?

And people sit here and wonder why the gun control debate is going nowhere.

[libtodeath]

42. Did you miss the right turn?

[SayWut]

45. No, but it looks like you got off on the wrong exit.

[libtodeath]

49. blah blah blah

[Duckhunter935]

61. Exhibit B

Can I check one out and go on a shooting spree? I would be worried about the fine though.

[SayWut]

64. As long as you return it in time for muster,

I wouldn't worry about it.
I'd be more concerned about showing up with the blood stains of innocents on my breeches, and be assigned to clean the horse stalls as punishment.

[Cleita]

46. Let them have muskets and train them to use them in

a disciplined militia complete with officers and marching. That is in keeping with the Constitution. Oh, but that would make them Revolutionary War re-enactors wouldn't it? My bad!

Sorry. I didn't mean to piss on your thread. You have some good ideas there for discussion.

[libtodeath]

50. And in keeping with the constitution too nor calling for a repeal of the 2nd

just it to be taken as written and regulation as it says.

[Duckhunter935]

56. well get a quill to write with

because the 1st does not cover computers

[Cleita]

59. Actually, they had newspapers and print media back then.

Ben Franklin published a periodical, not to mention his little tomes of wisdom. I grew up before computers and calculators. I had to hand write all my school work and only got to use that fabulous new invention a typewriter in college, a manual Royal, which our library had for the students to do their papers, which we had to wait in line for. The most modern calculator I had for my science classes was a slide rule. Yet I am no less educated than anyone else who went to college years later. As a matter of fact, I'm better educated than many who have had all the advantages of computers and the internet.

[Duckhunter935]

62. That would be fine

[CK_John]

47. A draft is needed for 18-24yr olds male/female and other not to exceed 1% of the census in any qtr.

[freshwest]

66. I like it. 'Proud gun owners' should act that way - in public, no secret agendas. That would work -

For those who have good intentions.