"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" Thomas Jefferson
Dems’ new gun control bill: federal license needed to buy one gun, confiscation, 5-year limit on license
Senate Democrats
introduced a strict new gun control bill on Thursday that would require all Americans to obtain a five-year federal firearm license before purchasing a single gun. The bill also authorizes the government to confiscate an individual’s guns if the license is revoked.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/05...IhtsNfoCd4
Isn't there a broad spectrum between
a) No one should ever be allowed to own a firearm, and
b) Absolutely anyone should be allowed to own any sort of weapon and carry it anywhere.
Don't we need to draw a line somewhere?
Is that what we're doing?
(05-23-2022, 05:56 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't there a broad spectrum between
a) No one should ever be allowed to own a firearm, and
b) Absolutely anyone should be allowed to own any sort of weapon and carry it anywhere.
Don't we need to draw a line somewhere?
There is a broad spectrum, but people think with their gut on this stuff.
I do too.
The idea that some people I work and shop with might have loaded guns in their pockets and purses, doesn't bother me at all.
But the idea that these private citizens might be walking around with weapons in their hands, or openly in their belts, that bothers me. I think only uniformed police and security should be walking around like that. I don't have a great reason to feel that way, but that's how my gut feels.
I don't think anyone here can change my gut feelings. And I doubt I could change anyone else's.
I do think we need to be more careful when we talk about guns and the mentally ill. Most mentally ill people are not sadistic or violent and there's no extra danger to the public associated with them having guns. Mentally ill people are already some of the most disadvantaged in society. Instead we should focus on people who make violent or sadistic statements or actions. These are the people that the red flag laws should focus on. And they usually aren't mentally ill. They're just evil.
If the government can take your rights then you aren't free; you are just compliant.
But as for this topic, a federal gun license, strikes me as a bad idea on multiple levels. One, I don't think the federal government is really competent to manage such a thing across 330 million people, most of whom don't want to be managed. Health care is one thing, people want others involved in their health care. But guns are private. Two, I think it's best if states and even cities and counties are free to decide what gun regulations work best for them.
The system of background checks we already have seems to work well. That's not an opt-in license to own a weapon, it's just a list of people who shouldn't own them. And everyone not on the list isn't affected. That seems much better to me.
(05-23-2022, 10:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If the government can take your rights then you aren't free; you are just compliant.
Beautiful rhetoric. But my question stands.
Do you draw a line anywhere between a) no one should own any type of gun, and b) anyone should be able to own any kind of gun, and carry it around anywhere they want.
(05-23-2022, 10:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]But as for this topic, a federal gun license, strikes me as a bad idea on multiple levels. One, I don't think the federal government is really competent to manage such a thing across 330 million people, most of whom don't want to be managed. Health care is one thing, people want others involved in their health care. But guns are private. Two, I think its best if states and even cities and counties are free to decide what gun regulations work best for them.
Maybe they want some government involvement, but not to the point that the government dictates their specific treatment based on what procedures will be allowed or reimbursed. If you are advocating that, then as the spouse of a doctor, you should know better.
(05-23-2022, 10:36 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2022, 10:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]But as for this topic, a federal gun license, strikes me as a bad idea on multiple levels. One, I don't think the federal government is really competent to manage such a thing across 330 million people, most of whom don't want to be managed. Health care is one thing, people want others involved in their health care. But guns are private. Two, I think its best if states and even cities and counties are free to decide what gun regulations work best for them.
Maybe they want some government involvement, but not to the point that the government dictates their specific treatment based on what procedures will be allowed or reimbursed. If you are advocating that, then as the spouse of a doctor, you should know better.
I wasn't advocating for anything in particular. I'm only saying, medicare hasn't been repealed, Medicaid is still with us, HIPAA hasn't gone anywhere, and Obamacare will stay with us too. There are movements to trim around the margins of these things, but not eliminate them.
I mean, you're right, that insurance is a big pain in my wife's rear, but she's not the customer. Her customers are the people who are customers of insurance, and they mostly seem happy with the government regulation that shapes these policies.
If we did a federal gun license, it would be repealed within 4 years.
(05-23-2022, 10:31 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2022, 10:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If the government can take your rights then you aren't free; you are just compliant.
Beautiful rhetoric. But my question stands.
Do you draw a line anywhere between a) no one should own any type of gun, and b) anyone should be able to own any kind of gun, and carry it around anywhere they want.
Yes, the line is criminal history and property rights. If you commit a specific class of crime then you lose your freedom to own a firearm. In that sense I do not oppose background checks and the like. For the second, if I don't want you on my property with your gun then you can't bring it there. That goes for me, you, Publix, McDonalds, or any other person with legitimate property rights. Otherwise? Have at it.
(05-23-2022, 10:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]But as for this topic, a federal gun license, strikes me as a bad idea on multiple levels. One, I don't think the federal government is really competent to manage such a thing across 330 million people, most of whom don't want to be managed. Health care is one thing, people want others involved in their health care. But guns are private. Two, I think it's best if states and even cities and counties are free to decide what gun regulations work best for them.
The system of background checks we already have seems to work well. That's not an opt-in license to own a weapon, it's just a list of people who shouldn't own them. And everyone not on the list isn't affected. That seems much better to me.
See, we can agree on things when you really try to be reasonable. Other than that health care stuff in there which amounts to "people want other people to pay for their healthcare" most of what you said is ok. Local control isn't realistic since the variation from county to county would be too much, but State law is fine with me, so long as there is an absolute ceiling to what they can enact and enforce. For instance, California could not enact a confiscation and prohibition law in that state as they have with "assault" weapons and high capacity magazines, nor would any State be able to enact a law against concealed carry. Infringement on the rights through regulation would not be permitted.
(05-23-2022, 12:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2022, 10:31 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Beautiful rhetoric. But my question stands.
Do you draw a line anywhere between a) no one should own any type of gun, and b) anyone should be able to own any kind of gun, and carry it around anywhere they want.
Yes, the line is criminal history and property rights. If you commit a specific class of crime then you lose your freedom to own a firearm. In that sense I do not oppose background checks and the like. For the second, if I don't want you on my property with your gun then you can't bring it there. That goes for me, you, Publix, McDonalds, or any other person with legitimate property rights. Otherwise? Have at it.
I agree with all of that.
I don't think it's a good idea for any state or locality to try to ban specific weapon types or upgrades or try to ban gun stores. It just doesn't work. It's too easy to bring something in from another state or county.
But I do think it's a good idea for states and counties and even cities to have their own rules about carrying loaded weapons. Open carry works fine in some places. In other places concealed works best. Some places it makes sense to require a class for a permit, other places it doesn't. Some places it makes sense to restrict what people over 18 but under 21 can own, in other places it doesn't. We have to let federalism do its work in these areas.
(05-23-2022, 12:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2022, 12:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the line is criminal history and property rights. If you commit a specific class of crime then you lose your freedom to own a firearm. In that sense I do not oppose background checks and the like. For the second, if I don't want you on my property with your gun then you can't bring it there. That goes for me, you, Publix, McDonalds, or any other person with legitimate property rights. Otherwise? Have at it.
I agree with all of that.
I don't think it's a good idea for any state or locality to try to ban specific weapon types or upgrades or try to ban gun stores. It just doesn't work. It's too easy to bring something in from another state or county.
But I do think it's a good idea for states and counties and even cities to have their own rules about carrying loaded weapons. Open carry works fine in some places. In other places concealed works best. Some places it makes sense to require a class for a permit, other places it doesn't. Some places it makes sense to restrict what people over 18 but under 21 can own, in other places it doesn't. We have to let federalism do its work in these areas.
See, that's where we diverge. I don't think any of those things should be permitted to be regulated.
(05-23-2022, 10:31 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2022, 10:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If the government can take your rights then you aren't free; you are just compliant.
Beautiful rhetoric. But my question stands.
Do you draw a line anywhere between a) no one should own any type of gun, and b) anyone should be able to own any kind of gun, and carry it around anywhere they want.
Permits for any weapon above standard issue in our military.
(05-23-2022, 04:20 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2022, 10:31 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Beautiful rhetoric. But my question stands.
Do you draw a line anywhere between a) no one should own any type of gun, and b) anyone should be able to own any kind of gun, and carry it around anywhere they want.
Permits for any weapon above standard issue in our military.
Standard issue varies of course, and most weapons out there aren't purchased or issued by the military at all.
But our government kind of does what you're saying anyway. You need a federal permit in order to own a full auto machine gun.
(05-23-2022, 07:30 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly.
Screw that, my equipment is way better than that lowest bidder crap G.I.s get.
(05-23-2022, 08:03 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]![[Image: TC.jpg]](https://rlcole.tripod.com/political/TC.jpg)
Nearly every gun related crime is done with a once-legal gun. How do you stop guns once owned by law abiding citizens getting into the hands of crims? How many people negligently store firearms?
(05-23-2022, 09:42 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2022, 07:30 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly.
Screw that, my equipment is way better than that lowest bidder crap G.I.s get.
I'm just saying a soldier gets a semi-auto handgun or rifle. That's good enough of a restriction for the populace. How they trick it out is up to them. We don't need fully automatic weapons to defend our homes or way of life. 300 million people with semi-autos in their homes is enough of a deterrent.