Gun Permit

[Samozaryadnyastan]

He subscribes to Kemalist Ideology, which I believe can be likened to a kind of Turkish Libertarianism.

still don't see a reason.
not wanting to be killed or robbed at gun point seems like a fairly legitimate worry even from the most self centered perspective.

Probably for the same reason that firearms registries got banned.
Twice. And nearly thrice.

People don't want to submit their dealings to the ebul gubmint.

[Sociobiology]

still don't see a reason.
not wanting to be killed or robbed at gun point seems like a fairly legitimate worry even from the most self centered perspective.

Probably for the same reason that firearms registries got banned.
Twice. And nearly thrice.

People don't want to submit their dealings to the ebul gubmint.

which is strange, since in most hypothetical libertarian paradises advertising you have a gun is your main source of protection.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Probably for the same reason that firearms registries got banned.
Twice. And nearly thrice.

People don't want to submit their dealings to the ebul gubmint.

which is strange, since in most hypothetical libertarian paradises advertising you have a gun is your main source of protection.

But you have the opportunity to bullshit, and it's also not documented when you do.
Critically, you also have the option to not say a word on the topic.

[Lemanrussland]

It seems reasonable to me, I would be perfectly fine with that, along with a requirement to conceal firearms if you want to carry them in a public place (open carry, in an inappropriate situation/place, is extremely disruptive and causes more trouble than it's worth, in my opinion), and restrictions on so-called "destructive devices". I would also support forensically fingerprinting guns so that bullets from crime scenes can be traced back to the gun which fired them.

The great danger of registration, at least among more extreme gun rights advocates, is that it's an avenue for future seizure. I recognize that concern. In an ideal world, where we could leave gun control limited to that, I would definitely support this sort of set up.

[Sociobiology]

which is strange, since in most hypothetical libertarian paradises advertising you have a gun is your main source of protection.

But you have the opportunity to bullshit, and it's also not documented when you do.
Critically, you also have the option to not say a word on the topic.

which is supposed to be a good thing?

[Sociobiology]

It seems reasonable to me, I would be perfectly fine with that, along with a requirement to conceal firearms if you want to carry them in a public place (open carry, in an inappropriate situation/place, is extremely disruptive and causes more trouble than it's worth, in my opinion), and restrictions on so-called "destructive devices". I would also support forensically fingerprinting guns so that bullets from crime scenes can be traced back to the gun which fired them.

The great danger of registration, at least among more extreme gun rights advocates, is that it's an avenue for future seizure. I recognize that concern. In an ideal world, where we could leave gun control limited to that, I would definitely support this sort of set up.

It always struck me as strange since if the government decides to seize firearms not having a database is hardly going to impede them.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

But you have the opportunity to bullshit, and it's also not documented when you do.
Critically, you also have the option to not say a word on the topic.

which is supposed to be a good thing?

*shrugs*

I'd personally support a firearms registry, but Americans wouldn't, so I don't really push it as a thing in these debates.

[Sociobiology]

which is supposed to be a good thing?

*shrugs*

I'd personally support a firearms registry, but Americans wouldn't, so I don't really push it as a thing in these debates.

actually a majority number of Americans do, it is just that the ones that don't are better funded and in positions of power.
My number one problem with redistricting.

[Llamalandia]

In this current political climate, i see its way more likely they would start confiscating firearms than cars or veterans.

probably because the harm to benefit ratio is the highest for firearms. A government does not need to be totalitarian to consider strict gun control. Heck if there was an national referendum that ended with handgun or automatic weapon ban, as happened in Brazil and Norway, the government would be obligated to begin confiscation, and it would be a democratic decision.

You may not be aware of this but in America unlike many other countries around the world we don't have any system of national referenda to change laws (though some states do for state laws) and we would instead have to revise the 2nd amendment to effect any confiscation of guns. The constitution is meant specifically to thwart the will of a simple majority so as to protect and preserve individual rights.

[Galloism]

He subscribes to Kemalist Ideology, which I believe can be likened to a kind of Turkish Libertarianism.

still don't see a reason.
not wanting to be killed or robbed at gun point seems like a fairly legitimate worry even from the most self centered perspective.

I've never understood this strange obsession that some people would rather be killed or robbed at knife point, or crossbow point, or sword point, or spear point, or under threat of being beaten to death, or at tazer point, and, somehow, that's better than being robbed at gunpoint.

Because guns are bad, or something.

[Hathradic States]

No, I oppose it. It infringes on the right to bear arms.

[Llamalandia]

*shrugs*

I'd personally support a firearms registry, but Americans wouldn't, so I don't really push it as a thing in these debates.

actually a majority number of Americans do, it is just that the ones that don't are better funded and in positions of power.
My number one problem with redistricting.

If that's true then the antigun people should;t have much trouble both raising funds (for such a popular cause after all obama won on money and was the first candidate ever to a billion$ and did so most through small scale donors ) and winning the state legislatures necessary to control the gerrymander power and thus redraw districts more favorably to their interests. This is if gun control is as popular as polls seem to indicate it is.

[Galloism]

I would support it but with yearly renewals.

There would be fees, of course. They could be paid to the victims of violent crimes.

So, the logic here is that we should confiscate money from law-abiding gun owners, to pay those who are victims of crimes because....?

[Llamalandia]

still don't see a reason.
not wanting to be killed or robbed at gun point seems like a fairly legitimate worry even from the most self centered perspective.

I've never understood this strange obsession that some people would rather be killed or robbed at knife point, or crossbow point, or sword point, or spear point, or under threat of being beaten to death, or at tazer point, and, somehow, that's better than being robbed at gunpoint.

Because guns are bad, or something.

I agree with most of your list except that generally tazers can't kill people without prolonged use, far more than would be used in a simple robbery.

[Galloism]

I've never understood this strange obsession that some people would rather be killed or robbed at knife point, or crossbow point, or sword point, or spear point, or under threat of being beaten to death, or at tazer point, and, somehow, that's better than being robbed at gunpoint.

Because guns are bad, or something.

I agree with most of your list except that generally tazers can't kill people without prolonged use, far more than would be used in a simple robbery.

True. We could try an information campaign for criminals to use tazers to threaten people with, in order to reduce the number of deaths resulting from robberies.

Guns for tazers program, anyone?

[Llamalandia]

It seems reasonable to me, I would be perfectly fine with that, along with a requirement to conceal firearms if you want to carry them in a public place (open carry, in an inappropriate situation/place, is extremely disruptive and causes more trouble than it's worth, in my opinion), and restrictions on so-called "destructive devices". I would also support forensically fingerprinting guns so that bullets from crime scenes can be traced back to the gun which fired them.

The great danger of registration, at least among more extreme gun rights advocates, is that it's an avenue for future seizure. I recognize that concern. In an ideal world, where we could leave gun control limited to that, I would definitely support this sort of set up.

It always struck me as strange since if the government decides to seize firearms not having a database is hardly going to impede them.

I agree to an extent. I mean to further your point don't a lot of people buy guns to defend against illegal confection (i.e. theft) of valuables by private individuals in the first place. I mean if someone tries to take your gun from you all have to do is shoot them after all. I will say though that not knowing who does and doesn't have guns would slow down any prospective confiscation and give people more time to form an organized resistance though.

[Llamalandia]

I agree with most of your list except that generally tazers can't kill people without prolonged use, far more than would be used in a simple robbery.

True. We could try an information campaign for criminals to use tazers to threaten people with, in order to reduce the number of deaths resulting from robberies.

Guns for tazers program, anyone?

Actually if Im not too much mistaken some criminals actually make sure to unload their firearms before holding up a convince store for example to avoid a charge of using a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime or likewise they use fake water guns instead because its hard tell the difference when someone points what looks like a gun at you and screams for money.

[Galloism]

True. We could try an information campaign for criminals to use tazers to threaten people with, in order to reduce the number of deaths resulting from robberies.

Guns for tazers program, anyone?

Actually if Im not too much mistaken some criminals actually make sure to unload their firearms before holding up a convince store for example to avoid a charge of using a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime or likewise they use fake water guns instead because its hard tell the difference when someone points what looks like a gun at you and screams for money.

Some states still charge them with use of a deadly weapon, as long as the victim reasonably believed it was a deadly weapon.

[Big Jim P]

*shrugs*

I'd personally support a firearms registry, but Americans wouldn't, so I don't really push it as a thing in these debates.

actually a majority number of Americans do, it is just that the ones that don't are better funded and in positions of power.
My number one problem with redistricting.

Source?

[Greed and Death]

It seems reasonable to me, I would be perfectly fine with that, along with a requirement to conceal firearms if you want to carry them in a public place (open carry, in an inappropriate situation/place, is extremely disruptive and causes more trouble than it's worth, in my opinion), and restrictions on so-called "destructive devices". I would also support forensically fingerprinting guns so that bullets from crime scenes can be traced back to the gun which fired them.

The great danger of registration, at least among more extreme gun rights advocates, is that it's an avenue for future seizure. I recognize that concern. In an ideal world, where we could leave gun control limited to that, I would definitely support this sort of set up.

It always struck me as strange since if the government decides to seize firearms not having a database is hardly going to impede them.

A lot harder to bury your guns in a container and say you have no guns when the government has a database.
Sort of like how the IRA did things.

[Greed and Death]

True. We could try an information campaign for criminals to use tazers to threaten people with, in order to reduce the number of deaths resulting from robberies.

Guns for tazers program, anyone?

Actually if Im not too much mistaken some criminals actually make sure to unload their firearms before holding up a convince store for example to avoid a charge of using a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime or likewise they use fake water guns instead because its hard tell the difference when someone points what looks like a gun at you and screams for money.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/gloss ... weapon.htm

To my knowledge most jurisdictions consider an unloaded weapon a deadly weapon. You can still club people with it after all.

[Zonolia]

I'd support this, albeit in the US it would be smeared as "An evil Communist-Nazi-Fascist-Obama law to restrict you 1st and 6th amendment rights"...

[Llamalandia]

He subscribes to Kemalist Ideology, which I believe can be likened to a kind of Turkish Libertarianism.

still don't see a reason.
not wanting to be killed or robbed at gun point seems like a fairly legitimate worry even from the most self centered perspective.

Um in fairness to the Ataturk and Kemalist ideology, turkey did rapidly modernize it's economy under this leadership and ideology and continues to attract a growing number of business to the country even now. But yeah starting to veer off topic.

[Llamalandia]

I'd support this, albeit in the US it would be smeared as "An evil Communist-Nazi-Fascist-Obama law to restrict you 1st and 6th amendment rights"...

Not really sure how the 1st amendment is relevant, the sixth if you're talking about confiscation maybe, as part of due process generally also involves a trial by jury, though Im guessing your post merely in jest. Also given that you support an admitted socialist I fail to see why you would ever characterize obama (who is to the right of sanders) as a communist.

[Sociobiology]

actually a majority number of Americans do, it is just that the ones that don't are better funded and in positions of power.
My number one problem with redistricting.

Source?

66% of the populace support
"Requiring gun owners to register with the state or local government and provide a set of fingerprints"
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

and more than 90% support background checks for all sales.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx