gun control laws that make sense? wow!

[BlaqueKatt]

part of this article regarding second amendment rights-

Following the striking down of the DC gun ban lawmakers passed some gun control laws that actually make sense.

regulations now include requirements to register weapons and to submit to a multiple-choice test, fingerprinting and a ballistics test. Owners must also show they have gotten classroom instruction on handling a gun and have spent at least an hour on the firing range.

I can live with that-you take a test to drive a car and classroom instruction, plus requirements for "behind the wheel", and a car can be just as deadly. "common sense" laws like this would do more for safe firearm ownership than outright bans. I would be in full support of this as a federal standard, in addition to a background check(maybe some sort of " federal firearm license?"-though I do have an issue with mandatory registration.

maybe get the federal license to purchase firearms, and just show that to run a background check-have some unique identifier code to make the check a bit quicker-I may have to actually contact my congressperson about this..I feel it's not at all unreasonable. comments anyone?

[Plaidman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgCceg042w

Is all one really has to say...

[insertNameHere]

I saw screw it to registration, watch this 20min video. they point out certain other people who require registration, and mention how it is the first step towards confiscation. It is a lot easier to go door to store demanding the surrender of weapons when you know who has them, makes a military invasion that much simpler.

the 2nd amendment protected us in WW2 according to this qoute

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)

[Wingates_Hellsing]

On the other hand, registration of firearms goes a long way in helping law enforcement investigate and prosecute crimes committed with those weapons. Furthermore, following the frankly stupid and irresponsible confiscation of registered firearms during/after hurricane Katrina, it's since been made illegal to confiscate legally owned firearms in crisis situations (so basically, you can't).

Sensible requirements such as those in the article, however, are a reasonable step toward ensuring that those buying weapons are on-the-level as well as capable of owning and operating their weapons properly.

It may be tricky for people to get range time without owning a weapon, but I'm confident that classes in effected areas will simply incorporate range time with provided weapons.

[Greenday]

The scary part is that four of the nine justices voted against the second amendment being valid.

[Rapscallion]

The scary part is that four of the nine justices voted against the second amendment being valid.

What were their reasons?

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

The car analogy doesn't work, because it is perfectly legal to own a car without having a license to operate it. You don't even have to have it registered, and beyond a certain age (it used to be 15 years, though whether that still holds, or whether it's been changed, or whether it was "cars made before 19xx" instead I don't know.)

Whereas with gun registration and licensing, you can't even own one. You may not see the difference immediately, but for example: Dad has several guns; enough that I'm not sure how many. A couple are modern, for protection and for shooting for fun. The rest are older designs, some real, some reproductions (Civil War, mainly), But they're real guns and would work if someone had ammunition and knew how to work the things. Nobody in their right mind is likely ever to do such a thing, especially not in a crime; newer ones are far easier to work, more accurate, etc. They're just for looking at. But I fully expect that one day either I or my brothers will own them, with neither the intention nor the necessary knowledge to use them.

[jackfaire]

In my state you can "own" a car without a license but you can't actually switch the title into your name in the first place without one. Meaning that unless the person is willing to sell you the car and have it being driven around with them liable for it you aren't getting a car.

[Greenday]

What were their reasons?

Rapscallion

Well, in the original link, they claimed that it will make all of our communities unsafe. The only thing that has been done is that the Supreme Court said cities can't outright ban guns. NYC has an excellent policy. Guns are not banned. People with criminal records are banned from being allowed firearms.

[Rapscallion]

Interesting thought - the frontlines of war are where I'd arm criminals. I'd consider them more expendable. Slight deviation from topic, though.

More on topic, that sort of law is what the UK had, though we've restricted weapon types now. Most guns are now unnecessary.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I guess we just come at it from different directions. Over here, at least in theory, something being necessary or not doesn't much effect it's legal status. Unless there's a tangible damage done by the simple fact that it's there, the government has no right to ban it.

When it comes to firearms in general, there is a small threat albeit easily minimized through sensible regulation. The same goes for any given weapon type (Title II has been very successful when it comes to 'assault weapons', automatic weapons and the like.)

It seems, at least in theory, you can only have something even a little dangerous in Europe if it's necessary, but the government can only ban something if banning it is necessary.

[Rapscallion]

Europe isn't one nation with one set of laws - many different sets of laws over here. The UK is one of the biggest on controlling guns and knives. I don't really want to be lumped in with the yurpeans.

Interesting thought, though. I'm unaffected by the gun laws in the UK. I'm therefore quite happy for the laws to be in place. Due to knife crime, there are some restrictions and, though I'm not buying knives to wander around with one for self defence, I'm slightly irked and starting to think how far it's going to go.

Interesting parallel with the gun situation in the US.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

The car analogy doesn't work, because it is perfectly legal to own a car without having a license to operate it. You don't even have to have it registered

What state is that in pray tell?
I know when I bought my car I had to provide my driver's license before the dealership would even start talking about allowing me to purchase (that may have been a dealership rule and not a state rule, but when three different dealerships begin the negotiation with "can we see your license" makes me think it isn't just a dealership thing). And, I can't speak for all states, but in Nevada every vehicle you own must be registered, even if you are not driving it... I know this because my mom got a fine from code enforcement for having an unregistered vehicle on her property (granted, for those laws to be enforceable you have to be parked in such a way that the plates can be seen from the street, but that does not change that the law is on the books). Also, cops can and do pull people over for invalid registration (I know from personal experience on that one). At least in Nevada and Utah all police officers are trained to run the plates of the car in front of them at stop lights to verify registration (or at least that's what I've been told by friends who work in law enforcement).
So yes, the car analogy works marvelously, because for all intensive purposes you do have to have a license to purchase one... even in those places where you can purchase without a license, there isn't anything you can do with it (short of give it to someone with a license as a gift). You can easily apply the same logic to firearms, what purpose (with the exception of collectible guns) would someone have for purchasing a firearm other than planning to use it (for sport or defense). Actually, broaden that language out even further, with the exception of purchasing something as a gift, what purpose do we have for purchasing anything other than to use it.
When arguing that it isn't a fair comparison because theoretically you could buy a car without a license but couldn't buy a gun without a license, we are starting to get into semantics.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Europe isn't one nation with one set of laws - many different sets of laws over here. The UK is one of the biggest on controlling guns and knives. I don't really want to be lumped in with the yurpeans.

Interesting thought, though. I'm unaffected by the gun laws in the UK. I'm therefore quite happy for the laws to be in place. Due to knife crime, there are some restrictions and, though I'm not buying knives to wander around with one for self defence, I'm slightly irked and starting to think how far it's going to go.

Interesting parallel with the gun situation in the US.

Rapscallion

I never intended to imply that such was so. Rather, that, by and large, the countries in Europe tend to have a similar stance on this issue. Moreover, I wouldn't want to be lumped in with other Americans either.

and that is an interesting parallel.

[Rapscallion]

It wasn't a direct thing coming from your post, actually. It was more my mind wandering in a tangent. That said, knives have more than the use of stabbing people, so it's not a perfect analogy. It means I can more see where pro-gunners are coming from, but I can't make the full leap as guns are only there to kill or injure people.

Rapscallion