I can’t envision any kind of testing that would weed out violent people and crazies. I am talking design a gun-use test that mirrors the purpose you cite for driver testing: “to keep guns away from those shouldn’t shoot, i.e. those who are incapable of shooting safely”. Obviously, you cannot accurately test for a person’s potential to commit a violent act. But you can simply test for her knowledge of basic, practical gun safety. Would this solve gun violence? Would criminals be careful to not let the gun licenses expire? No. But since it is generally allowed that we’re already slipping down the gun-control slope, it seems like the NRA should explore some new tactics. Would proposing this kind of safety-oriented licensing hush the gun-controllers without shoving us inexorably to the bottom of the greased slide? Who knows? If the situation is as dire as the NRA says, what have they got to lose?
Sorry, my last post was pocked with weird grammar, missing words and bad use of quotes (sorry DS, didn’t mean to imply that you had been speaking of firearms). I hope the meaning came through.
For the record, this thread has got me thinking as well. While I am still in favor of some type of licensing, I also feel like I better understand the furur of many pro-gun arguments. I fight in myself a fatalistic tendency: “Shit, the guv’munts gonna get us all sooner or later, so why care?” Several of you have reminded me of good reasons to care.
Since this is the point of the OP, I hearken back to this now aged post.
Will many of you call it naive to hope that some level of reason would be applied to the process of increasing such licensing programs? There are simple safety arguments for licensing a gun user or a driver. I can’t think of similar arguments for licensing one’s right to go to church, where generally speaking no such hazards are present. If, perchance, your religion of choice is a “dangerous” one, and your participation is actively causing harm to others, then we already have plenty or laws and regs to deal with you. Otherwise, do we really think people could or would argue to slap down these kind of regulations on every conceivable rightful pursuit?
Many people would automatically say yes. Maybe they’re right. I guess I am naive, but I don’t really know how to deal with a society where we can’t depend on the tiniest spec of reason.
Just as an observation, not with the intent to become a fringe person with respect to Constitutional law, has anybody noticed that, as regards the Bill of Rights, it is only the First Amendment that restricts Congress in its explicit terms. The others guarantee rights; it is the USSC that has understood them to be restrictive of the Federal government only. A case could be made that, regardless of how one interprets the Fourteenth Amendment, Amendments 2-9 deal with rights of citizens of the United States and are as applicable to the states as to the Feds. (Amendment 10 is a special case, of course.) I dunno as I’d want to try to argue that in front of the Rehnquist Court, but it’s certainly one legitimate way to read the law (especially as regards the idea of strict constructionism). DS, any comment?
Dirt:
You impress me as a thinking person. Sometimes rationalization is cloaked as reason, fooling all but the most vigilant.
Notice how long it took seat belts to be “reasoned” into law. It was a hard sell to convince Americans that government was their safety nanny. But once done, there was an avalanche of new regulations (c.f. airbags, etc.). The price of a new Impala went from $1,800 in 1962 to $25,000 in 1992. Yes, wages went up too. But the 60s, 70s, and 80s, times of exponential rates in creation of government regulations, were horribly turbulent economic times. A real rollercoaster.
Politicians take small steps in their march to aggrandizement. It’s called the Theory of the Slippery Slope. Once you get something going, it’s downhill all the way. Momentum carries it to its own extreme.
Let me give it a go, to see if we can start a slippery slope for free speech.
Reasoning:
These are not the old days. Times have changed. The Internet is unlike anything we’ve every had as a society. As a context, it gives speech a whole new dimension never envisioned by the framers of the constitution. It can be used by everything from terrorists to child molestors for instant world-wide effect. I’m not saying let’s license all speech. Just this one thing. And I’m not even saying necessarily make it permenant. Maybe just till we get a handle on the technology.
Well?
It is amazing sometimes what you bump into on the net when you are in one of these debates.
It seems that I am not the only one who thinks that the US government could one day legislate it’s legitamacy away.
[url=http://www.azcentral.com/news/0203cap.shtml]3rd Story Down
Sorry about that. Please don’t think I pulling a dirt and trying to up my post count. 
Really, there are much easier ways to up a post count. (See current post ;).)
Your example is more than compelling, and I’m personally not inclined to debate its legitimacy. In fact, I believe I’ve heard this exact rhetoric in congressional-type blah-fests, coming from people who clearly don’t know their ass from their ISP. Whether or not such regulatory measures over the Internet are even potentially feasible (I’m not much of a techie), the fact is the sentiment is out there. It would all be so funny, if it weren’t also so creepy.
At any rate, perhaps I’ve blabbed here enough today. Thanks to you who have taken pity on a newbie and engaged some of my ideas. Like I mentioned earlier, my thinking on the matter is expanding - as is my post count (f-n A, double digits!).
While I’m a long ways from being some sort of “gubbamint is evil” type, it does seem to me that there has been an erosion of certain rights.
In my opinion, this has almost universally been a result of well intentioned, but misguided actions by people who genuinely want to make things better. Every time something bad happens, there is a real, for the most part compassionate, desire to “do something” to insure that it doesn’t happen again. But this often results in ignoring the bigger picture in the heat of the moment. I very much agree with the quote that says (paraphrased), “He who gives up liberty to get safety deserves neither”.
OTOH, that seems like far from a universal value. I tend to value freedom above safety, even above life, but not everyone shares that outlook. It seems to me that because of such differing value systems, any potential system we put in place will violate someone’s concept of what is more important than what.
And just to piss off Gaudere: Lisence… Licence… lisense…
peas on earth
Dirt,
You said
Why would it be considered appropriate in a “free” society that the government even knows who owns a gun? In a free society, the government is limited to minimal powers and it is no business of the government as to who owns a gun.
You are born with certain unalienable rights. These rights are protected by the Constitution and are presumed innocent until proven guilty (in today’s society that is a load of crap but for another thread.)
Based on the presumption of innocence, it is always up to the government to prove guilty if you commit a crime. That said, it is implied you will be more likely to use a gun to commit a crime if not licensed. If the government licenses you, you are less likely to commit a crime.
Joe Average Citizen is not the people the government needs to be concerned with when it comes to licensing a gun.
DS Wrote:
Thank you for bringing this up. (I am going through post by post folks so bear with me)
The problem with this theory is, it doesn’t work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
There are ways for people to get things they are not allowed to, so why make it harder for honest and hardworking people? It makes no sense.
If an act such as prostitution or smoking pot is considered “illegal” it only opens up an underground arena for corruption and abuses. More people are harmed when things are considered illegal. The same goes with guns, the more it is restricted the stronger the criminals will become armed, leaving the average citizen without means by which to protect themselves.
Now, I urge you to read this article. If this woman felt somehow intimidated by the simple fact of having to be run through a legal ringer to get a fire arm, it is possible that she would not be alive today: http://www.azcentral.com/news/0202kidnap.shtml
One of the reasons I don’t own a gun is the crap you have to go through to get one. What if they find out about my clinical depression? Not only is that none of the government’s business, it could disqualify me from owning a gun – they state mental illness and I don’t know if they mean a simple case of clinical depression or some psycso. (sp)
Lib quoted from Equal Time:
I totally think this is possible. Given recent wacko groups of “cults” The Haley’s Comet thing is brought to mind, I wouldn’t doubt if some House member says that all groups will be subject to licensing.
Oh and BTW, if I remember correctly, an LA area county wants to have all writers register with the county for some tax reason, so they say. I can’t remember exactly but it was something I felt bordered on free speech restrictions. If I find the like I will post it.
like, link, ummmmmmm you know what I mean
Up there someone asked what gun control laws people on the pro-Second Amendment side should support.
My knee jerk reaction was NONE, but after reading and posting on the Free people should be armed thread, I have reconsidered.
Here are my proposals:
A massive government program (to keep the democrats happy ) where we license, train and supply a military style rifle to every citizen once they reach 18.
Every state shall have an objective “shall issue” concealed carry laws for handguns.
Once you have received your rifle training you are eligible to undergo the training for the concealed handgun permit.
All tests are objectively based.
Only a violent felony charge can prevent you from gun ownership.
Conviction of a violent crime with a firearm gets you an automatic 10 years extra in jail.
No parole, no time off for good behavior, no pla bargains. 10 years means 10 years.
Any person barred from firearm ownership with a weapon gets 5 years in jail.
Same as above except 5 years means 5 years.
No waiting periods.
Every citizen is required to own a gun except through a process similiar to the draft deferments.
When we started with this training, people could either go through the government programs, or through a private licensed company. Until we reached the point where almost everyone undergoing this training was 18, we would use a system similiar to the draft to decide who went first.
I’m sure there are a ton of rough corners up there. Flame away and I will refine it.
Um Freedom,
There is a Vermont state rep that is proposing that all Vermont peoples (what do you call them, Vermontans?) are required by law to own a gun.
I am not BSing you, if you don’t own a gun and fail to register, you face a $500 fine.
Here’s the link:http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/032/metro/Vt_Bill_targets_people_without_gunsP.shtml
You must have read this though, based on your posting.
try this again,
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/032/metro/Vt_Bill_targets_people_without_gunsP.shtml
If this doesn’t work, copy and paste…argh
We were just debating whether or not this was Constitutional over in another thread. They seem to feel that people have a “Right” not to own a gun.
Of course their greatest arguement is that part of having a right, is the right not to exercise it. Which of course would have to concede that everyone HAS a right to own firearms.
Even so, I still do not think a “Right” exists to not own a gun outside of a specific religious deferment. I don’t see where this is all that much different from the draft.
Freedom:
Did you mean “Freudom”?