Gun Permit

[Greed and Death]

Source?

66% of the populace support
"Requiring gun owners to register with the state or local government and provide a set of fingerprints"

The problem with that is the federal government can not require the local and state governments to collect fingerprints or do background checks. So that proposal is clearly for each state to address.

[Sociobiology]

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.

except guns are not effective theft prevention because criminals tend to rob houses when no one is home, in fact they make up the majority of cases, and even when they do rob ab occupied house it is usually under the mistaken belief the house is empty.
putting a protected by gun sticker on your house is a big sign saying this house has something worth stealing, namely the guns.
As for the government violent resistance would likely get guns confiscated, not the opposite, see every armed standoff with law enforcement in the last 50 years. Once you abandon legal methods of resolving conflict you loss public support quite quickly.

[Sociobiology]

66% of the populace support
"Requiring gun owners to register with the state or local government and provide a set of fingerprints"

The problem with that is the federal government can not require the local and state governments to collect fingerprints or do background checks.

why?

and note fingerprinting is not part of my proposal, and registration is done at point of initial sale.

[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"...

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.

It's not relevant, I was being sarcastic in how the right wing in the US would ultimately slander it with unrelated things...

And I never said I supported Obama, frankly he's too right wing for my tastes, and admitted socialist? (Source maybe?) How? He's of anything a rightwinged moderate...

[Sociobiology]

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.

but they are vastly more likely to be used, this is the current problem with law enforcement.

[Greed and Death]

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.

except guns are not effective theft prevention because criminals tend to rob houses when no one is home, in fact they make up the majority of cases, and even when they do rob ab occupied house it is usually under the mistaken belief the house is empty.
putting a protected by gun sticker on your house is a big sign saying this house has something worth stealing, namely the guns.
As for the government violent resistance would likely get guns confiscated, not the opposite, see every armed standoff with law enforcement in the last 50 years. Once you abandon legal methods of resolving conflict you loss public support quite quickly.

A little older than you would prefer, but the gun option has served as a check on corruption in the post War era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[Luziyca]

No. Guns should only be for the military, hunters and police. Period.

[Greed and Death]

The problem with that is the federal government can not require the local and state governments to collect fingerprints or do background checks.

why?

and note fingerprinting is not part of my proposal, and registration is done at point of initial sale.

Because the federal government can not commandeer state resources Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)( striking part of the Brady hand gun bill that required local law enforcement to do background checks).

They can bribe by paying for the program like with medicaid because states like the largely federally paid system but can not commandeer. The federal government can coerce states by threatening to cut off funds, provided they are related to the action ie Highway funds and drinking age under 21. The problem with the bribe with part is there would not be much of a gain from a fingerprint checking system a few hundred police officers at most. And the problem with the coercion method is nothing is really related fire arms that the federal government funds the states with.

Registration at the federal level is impractical it would involve vastly expanding federal law enforcement solely to fingerprint and register weapons and would be bloated waste of resources along with lessening the prestige of federal law enforcement as who would want to be an FBI agent if more likely than not it would result in a job maintaining a firearms registry.

[Geilinor]

Good idea. We have licenses to drive cars, so why not to own guns? It's easier to hurt someone with a gun than a car.

[Greed and Death]

Good idea. We have licenses to drive cars, so why not to own guns? It's easier to hurt someone with a gun than a car.

Driving a car on public roads is different from owning a gun in your home.
A license to carry in public is a reasonable compromise that treats gun ownership like car ownership, and look the states already have that.

[Sociobiology]

Good idea. We have licenses to drive cars, so why not to own guns? It's easier to hurt someone with a gun than a car.

Driving a car on public roads is different from owning a gun in your home.
A license to carry in public is a reasonable compromise that treats gun ownership like car ownership, and look the states already have that.

no I compare it to owning dynamite, and should have similar licencing.

[Geilinor]

Good idea. We have licenses to drive cars, so why not to own guns? It's easier to hurt someone with a gun than a car.

Driving a car on public roads is different from owning a gun in your home.
A license to carry in public is a reasonable compromise that treats gun ownership like car ownership, and look the states already have that.

Without a gun license, you shouldn't be allowed to operate a gun. You can't operate(drive) a car without a license. Both can pose a danger to others if used improperly.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Driving a car on public roads is different from owning a gun in your home.
A license to carry in public is a reasonable compromise that treats gun ownership like car ownership, and look the states already have that.

Without a gun license, you shouldn't be allowed to operate a gun. You can't operate(drive) a car without a license.

Yes you can.

[The New Sea Territory]

No gun laws would be best.

But minor checks to keep them away from only criminals and mentally disabled is ok.

[Geilinor]

Without a gun license, you shouldn't be allowed to operate a gun. You can't operate(drive) a car without a license.

Yes you can.

Not legally you can't. Unless you're going to do it in your driveway or if you have a learner's permit.

[Sociobiology]

why?

and note fingerprinting is not part of my proposal, and registration is done at point of initial sale.

Because the federal government can not commandeer state resources Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)( striking part of the Brady hand gun bill that required local law enforcement to do background checks).

who is proposing having the states do it?
This would be a federal proposal, paid for by a fee when you get the licence.

Registration at the federal level is impractical it would involve vastly expanding federal law enforcement solely to fingerprint and register weapons and would be bloated waste of resources along with lessening the prestige of federal law enforcement as who would want to be an FBI agent if more likely than not it would result in a job maintaining a firearms registry.

how do you think background checks work?
Also what does the FBI have to do with it?

[Sociobiology]

No gun laws would be best.

But minor checks to keep them away from only criminals and mentally disabled is ok.

best in bizzaro world?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yes you can.

Not legally you can't. Unless you're going to do it in your driveway or if you have a learner's permit.

This was my point.

I could live with driver's license like restrictions on firearms. Of course, that means I can buy whatever I like if it's for use on my private property and I transport it safely between the two points.

[Geilinor]

who would want to be an FBI agent if more likely than not it would result in a job maintaining a firearms registry.

Why would FBI agents be assigned such tasks?

[Llamalandia]

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.

except guns are not effective theft prevention because criminals tend to rob houses when no one is home, in fact they make up the majority of cases, and even when they do rob ab occupied house it is usually under the mistaken belief the house is empty.
putting a protected by gun sticker on your house is a big sign saying this house has something worth stealing, namely the guns.
As for the government violent resistance would likely get guns confiscated, not the opposite, see every armed standoff with law enforcement in the last 50 years. Once you abandon legal methods of resolving conflict you loss public support quite quickly.

No point was that once the decision to confiscate gets made it may be hard to implement as gun owners can simply shoot the people trying to do the confiscating. As to robbery, a gun helps when a robber breaks in and believes the home is empty and in fact it is not and he gets a nasty surprise, as for advertising the fact the a gun is present i imagine the incentive value balances out with the deterrence value.

[Llamalandia]

Why would FBI agents be assigned such tasks?

Because the FBI runs the background check NICS system and not the ATF contrary to what some believe.

[Geilinor]

Why would FBI agents be assigned such tasks?

Because the FBI runs the background check NICS system and not the ATF contrary to what some believe.

FBI agents won't be doing the work. There would be separate employees to manage NICS administration.

[Llamalandia]

Because the federal government can not commandeer state resources Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)( striking part of the Brady hand gun bill that required local law enforcement to do background checks).

who is proposing having the states do it?
This would be a federal proposal, paid for by a fee when you get the licence.

Registration at the federal level is impractical it would involve vastly expanding federal law enforcement solely to fingerprint and register weapons and would be bloated waste of resources along with lessening the prestige of federal law enforcement as who would want to be an FBI agent if more likely than not it would result in a job maintaining a firearms registry.

how do you think background checks work?
Also what does the FBI have to do with it?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the current background check system works by seeing if you are a criminal. If you make up a fake name address and dob (and assuming you don't get very unlucky and choose the name of an actual criminal) you won't be flagged as a prohibited person and would be approved for a firearm would you not?

[Geilinor]

who is proposing having the states do it?
This would be a federal proposal, paid for by a fee when you get the licence.


how do you think background checks work?
Also what does the FBI have to do with it?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the current background check system works by seeing if you are a criminal. If you make up a fake name address and dob (and assuming you don't get very unlucky and choose the name of an actual criminal) you won't be flagged as a prohibited person and would be approved for a firearm would you not?

Hello, fingerprints?

[Llamalandia]

Because the FBI runs the background check NICS system and not the ATF contrary to what some believe.

FBI agents won't be doing the work. There would be separate employees to manage NICS administration.

Oh so you're saying we would create another new federal agency, given how much money this govt already wastes on daily basis no thank you.