Gun Permit

[Sociobiology]

Enforcing gun permits is no punishment at all. It's prevention, and very fair prevention at that. If you believe yourself to be a responsible gun owner, then you should have no problems whatsoever proving it and getting the permit.

Sure, I just oppose needless bureaucracy that only slows down processes and isn't necessary for determining a person's self-responsibility.

except apparently it is necessary, given firearm homicide numbers and the ease at which a felon can get a firearm.
if people are not taking responsibility, the argument based on the assumption that they will is flawed.

[Liriena]

The idea that anyone should be able to own a gun, regardless of physical or mental condition, is irresponsible, both socially and legally.

The source on your sig was very clear in its comparison between the US and Switzerland: yes, guns are legally a lot less restricted there, but people themselves take guns seriously, they own them and use them responsibly, their entire culture revolves around an authoritarian idea of national duty when it comes to guns (rather than personal liberty) and most if not all male inhabitants have had at least basic military training.

uh Switzerland has stricter gun control than the US. they have mandatory licencing for one thing.

Actually, that is not entirely true.

You may click some links on Big Jim's sig for more info.

[Sociobiology]

uh Switzerland has stricter gun control than the US. they have mandatory licencing for one thing.

Actually, that is not entirely true.

You may click some links on Big Jim's sig for more info.

any one in particular?
I have clinked on a few and the ones that are not irrelevant are single sided biased sites, Which I generally ignore because they cannot be trusted to provide contrary data, so I have not had a lot of incentive to look at more.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. None of this is my actual opinion and I personally find it rather ridiculous, but I'm interested in counter-arguments [please be more specific than just 'that's stupid' {though honestly I agree with that point}]
What if America is invaded? Then we'll need firearm-bearing civilians, provided that they're well trained and not psychotic. In that regards your proposal is sound, but if the Enemy were to crack the registries, they could hunt down possible Partisan resistance groups within their occupation zones.
In Bosnia during the Bosnian War, the Army was severely deficient and had to be supported heavily by armed civilians to defend their homes and families. A UN arms embargo effectively deprived the Bosnians from arming themselves for self-defense.
Another perhaps more [relatively more!] applicable example is that of partisan warfare. If the Enemy [god I sound absurd. Devil's Advocate...] manages to push the army back and occupy a significant area, the Civilian population must do everything within its power to combat the occupiers. If the Enemy can track down all gun owners, then they'll be able to nip this in the bud very effectively, more so if they also arrest and/or execute the firearms holders [as the bulk of the people with the basic know-how of how to at the very least manufacture rudimentary firearms for the Resistance will be removed].

On a more serious note, it's not terribly difficult to manufacture simple guns. Actually, a huge problem your proposed law will encounter will be the fact that parts kit- rifles without recievers- will be readily bought and sold. An AR-15 type rifle is very easy to assemble without tools, if a black-market source of receivers [which can potentially be manufactured illicitly to avoid licensing issues] can be found. A much more basic example is that of the STEN-type gun, which can be manufactured very easily. Yes, it jams like hell, and it's much less effective than other guns, but it's still a gun.

I've assembled an AR15 upper, you need certain tools to assemble one. At the minimum, you'll need a vise, some sort of receiver block (to hold the receiver in the vise without tearing it up), an action wrench, a torque wrench (to torque the barrel nut to proper specs), a hammer, and some punches (to drive in the roll pins for the front sight base/gasblock, gas tube roll pin, forward assist retaining pin, and depending on the receiver the rear sight).

For the lower receiver, you won't need the torque wrench or action wrench, but there are roll pins in a couple of areas that will need to be driven in with a hammer and punch. There's also the hammer and trigger pins that need to be driven in, and the proper allen wrench for the grip screw.

[Sociobiology]

It surprises me how little opposition this has.

[Galloism]

It surprises me how little opposition this has.

Most of us old guard are just tired of arguing it.

Only thing that annoys me is the sloppy comparison to cars. If we regulated guns like cars we'd have to loosen gun regulations in almost every conceivable way.

[Sociobiology]

It surprises me how little opposition this has.

Most of us old guard are just tired of arguing it.

Only thing that annoys me is the sloppy comparison to cars. If we regulated guns like cars we'd have to loosen gun regulations in almost every conceivable way.

I have found comparing it to dynamite/explosives licencing is far better as a comparison.

I just want a thread that starts in the middle not at one of the extremes that way you can find out what peoples actual positions are.

[Galloism]

Most of us old guard are just tired of arguing it.

Only thing that annoys me is the sloppy comparison to cars. If we regulated guns like cars we'd have to loosen gun regulations in almost every conceivable way.

I have found comparing it to dynamite/explosives licencing is far better as a comparison.

I just want a thread that starts in the middle not at one of the extremes that way you can find out what peoples actual positions are.

Of course, it should be observed that there is a reason explosives are regulated more heavily than, say, firearms.

That involves the usefulness in terrorism and the potential for massive death and destruction if accidentally mishandled.

[Sociobiology]

I have found comparing it to dynamite/explosives licencing is far better as a comparison.

I just want a thread that starts in the middle not at one of the extremes that way you can find out what peoples actual positions are.

Of course, it should be observed that there is a reason explosives are regulated more heavily than, say, firearms.

That involves the usefulness in terrorism and the potential for massive death and destruction if accidentally mishandled.

I'm sorry was that last part supposed to be about explosives or firearms.

[Galloism]

Of course, it should be observed that there is a reason explosives are regulated more heavily than, say, firearms.

That involves the usefulness in terrorism and the potential for massive death and destruction if accidentally mishandled.

I'm sorry was that last part supposed to be about explosives or firearms.

Explosives.

Firearms have the potential for death if accidentally mishandled, much like a car, but not the potential for massive death if accidentally mishandled (like, say, a 747).

[Sociobiology]

I'm sorry was that last part supposed to be about explosives or firearms.

Explosives.

Firearms have the potential for death if accidentally mishandled, much like a car, but not the potential for massive death if accidentally mishandled (like, say, a 747).

no firearms just require purposeful mishandling, just like a bomb, or 747, and unlike a car.
although you could argue selling them to the mentally disabled is accidental mishandling.

[Galloism]

Explosives.

Firearms have the potential for death if accidentally mishandled, much like a car, but not the potential for massive death if accidentally mishandled (like, say, a 747).

no firearms just require purposeful mishandling, just like a bomb, or 747, and unlike a car.
although you could argue selling them to the mentally disabled is accidental mishandling.

Indeed, firearms require purposeful mishandling, much like, say, a tractor trailer, or fertilizer, or diesel fuel, and a few other trace and easily accessable components (which I will not detail) the combination of which can make quite the weapon, stronger than any firearm.

All of which require no license to buy or own.

[Sociobiology]

no firearms just require purposeful mishandling, just like a bomb, or 747, and unlike a car.
although you could argue selling them to the mentally disabled is accidental mishandling.

Indeed, firearms require purposeful mishandling, much like, say, a tractor trailer, or fertilizer, or diesel fuel, and a few other trace and easily accessable components (which I will not detail) the combination of which can make quite the weapon, stronger than any firearm.

All of which require no license to buy or own.

actually tractor trailers do require a CDL

Also a dozen stable explosives, as well as blasting caps also fit your definition and do require permits, because much like firearms they have limited legitimate use, whereas fertilizer and diesel fuel have an overwhelming number of legitimate uses.

[Greed and Death]

Sure, I just oppose needless bureaucracy that only slows down processes and isn't necessary for determining a person's self-responsibility.

except apparently it is necessary, given firearm homicide numbers and the ease at which a felon can get a firearm.
if people are not taking responsibility, the argument based on the assumption that they will is flawed.

If a woman is responsible enough to have an abortion she should have no problem getting it and getting a permit.

[Sociobiology]

except apparently it is necessary, given firearm homicide numbers and the ease at which a felon can get a firearm.
if people are not taking responsibility, the argument based on the assumption that they will is flawed.

If a woman is responsible enough to have an abortion she should have no problem getting it and getting a permit.

one abortion is time dependent, buying a firearm is not.

two no one can be harmed by an abortion except the person that chooses it.

three you are using the reverse of my argument, there is no irresponsible abortion on the part of a woman, the medical procedure can be preformed irresponsibly but that is on the doctor, which oddly enough DO have to have a licence.

/end abortion discussion

[Greed and Death]

If a woman is responsible enough to have an abortion she should have no problem getting it and getting a permit.

one abortion is time dependent, buying a firearm is not.

two no one can be harmed by an abortion except the person that chooses it.

three you are using the reverse of my argument, there is no irresponsible abortion on the part of a woman, the medical procedure can be preformed irresponsibly but that is on the doctor, which oddly enough DO have to have a licence.

Suicides increase after an abortion, suicides hurt all of society through loss productivity, attempted suicides hurt all of society with increased medical expenses. Clearly preventive care to prevent suicide is needed, and one of those ways is rigorous mental health checks to ensure a woman consideirng an abortion is unlikely to have suicidal thoughts.

That is a valid need right ? Lowering health insurance cost for everyone.

[Sociobiology]

one abortion is time dependent, buying a firearm is not.

two no one can be harmed by an abortion except the person that chooses it.

three you are using the reverse of my argument, there is no irresponsible abortion on the part of a woman, the medical procedure can be preformed irresponsibly but that is on the doctor, which oddly enough DO have to have a licence.

Suicides increase after an abortion,

not more than the increase after giving birth.
which ends the rest of your argument.

also do you know anything about firearm suicide rates?

suicides hurt all of society through loss productivity,

not an argument, TV causes a far greater loss in productivity, as does WOW.

and if you want an abortion thread create one, because this is the last reply I will give it.

[Galloism]

Indeed, firearms require purposeful mishandling, much like, say, a tractor trailer, or fertilizer, or diesel fuel, and a few other trace and easily accessable components (which I will not detail) the combination of which can make quite the weapon, stronger than any firearm.

All of which require no license to buy or own.

actually tractor trailers do require a CDL

Also a dozen stable explosives also fit your definition and do require permits, because much like firearms they have limited legitimate uses, were as fertilizer and diesel fuel have an overwhelming number of legitimate uses.

Firearms have an immense number of legitimate uses, particularly compared to fertilizer.

Fertilizer has one use: assisting in plant growth.

Firearms can be used to bring home food, recreation, safety classes, family bonding, personal defense, and home defense.

Also, tractor trailers require a CDL to drive legally. Any bozo can buy one.

[Greed and Death]

Suicides increase after an abortion,

not more than the increase after giving birth.
which ends the rest of your argument.

also do you know anything about firearm suicide rates?

suicides hurt all of society through loss productivity,

not an argument, TV causes a far greater loss in productivity, as does WOW.

and if you want an abortion thread create one, because this is the last reply I will give it.

Your arguing for gun regulations because of harm of society, I am just taking it to its logical conclusion.

Your right, maybe we should do a mental health check at puberty for every female and sterilize those who might be susceptible to post abortion and Postpartum depression.

An no one doubts the ability of the government to regulate TV and the internet now do they ?

[Grinning Dragon]

What is your your stance on mandatory background checks for gun ownership and/or a firearms permit, and why.

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires a background check, a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15), a written test, a one afternoon class on firearms safety, and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the license can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, etc.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, etc.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales

Edit: things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, etc.) would be endorsements on the card.

It is Unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise a Constitutional Right. The rest of the proposal sounds more like turning a Right into a privilege. I oppose all these proposals.

[Sociobiology]

not more than the increase after giving birth.
which ends the rest of your argument.

also do you know anything about firearm suicide rates?


not an argument, TV causes a far greater loss in productivity, as does WOW.

and if you want an abortion thread create one, because this is the last reply I will give it.

Your arguing for gun regulations because of harm of society, I am just taking it to its logical conclusion.

except your not because abortion causes no harm to society, if anything it does the opposite.
parents with few high investment children tend to produce more successful, and thus statistically more productive, children.

It helps if you know the first thing about population genetics.

[Sociobiology]

What is your your stance on mandatory background checks for gun ownership and/or a firearms permit, and why.

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires a background check, a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15), a written test, a one afternoon class on firearms safety, and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the license can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, etc.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, etc.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales

Edit: things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, etc.) would be endorsements on the card.

It is Unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise a Constitutional Right.

the right is debatable, dynamite is an arm, but requires a permit, as do RPG's.

according to the document exercising your right also puts you under the direct command of the president.

Also the constitution can and has been wrong, and can and has been changed and/or reinterpreted.

[Greed and Death]

Your arguing for gun regulations because of harm of society, I am just taking it to its logical conclusion.

except your not because abortion causes no harm to society, if anything it does the opposite.
parents with few high investment children tend to produce more successful, and thus statistically more productive, children.

It helps if you know the first thing about population genetics.

Bull shit I just showed you a societial harm and you conceded it with your quip about postpartum depression suicides.

[Cosara]

I would not support this law!

[Galloism]

It is Unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise a Constitutional Right.

the right is debatable, dynamite is an arm, but requires a permit, as do RPG's.

according to the document exercising your right also puts you under the direct command of the president.

Also the constitution can and has been wrong, and can and has been changed and/or reinterpreted.

The constitution has never been wrong regarding the standing law in the United States, as there is no higher authority to overrule it.

Interpretations, however, have been overturned and changed over time. Amendments have also been made.

However, that doesn't make the constitution wrong with regard to standing law. By definition, it cannot be.