Interesting "gun control" proposal

[gogohopper]

Name one anti 2a concession, that has not been abused, or used as a spring board to further concessions.
Rinse. Repeat.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[tuncas]

OP I give ya kudos for dropping in a "Interesting Gun Control Proposal" on a gun board where the only Gun Control tolerated is me controlling my gun.



Having said that . . .



Required Training. I have some questions for you:

1. Who will conduct the training? The State? The Feds?

2. Who will determine the training course? (See question #1)

3. Will the training be local? Will I have to travel 500 miles or more?

4. Will I have to bring my own weapon? How will I do that if I have to have the training before I buy?

5. What if I can't drive? Will there be public transportation to the training?

6. Will there be a test to determining if the training was adequate? What if I fail the test will I have to take the training again?



Just some of the many questions I would have to get behind your "interesting gun control proposal"



I have one for you though and I think this would actually work?



1. To buy and own a gun in America, you must be (a) an American Citizen born in this country OR (b) immigrated through the proper channels.



Possession of a firearm by other than an American Citizen is punishable by permanent deportation or incarceration.

Man, either no one actual reads the OP or they do and the comprehension lacks.

This is NOT MY PROPOSAL.

I read tons of articles both pro and anti because, well I like guns. Hence why I'm on this forum. Normally it's always the same crap from the anti crowd so when I read this one I thought to myself "hmm, that's different. I wonder what calguns would think."

So I started this thread.

I knew how most would respond. In a similarly extreme yet opposite fashion to the very anti gunners they despise.

I'm kind of stumped why I care so much to clarify that this is not my proposal for gun control, after all I don't know anyone here. It only bothers me because I am a staunch supporter of gun rights yet some of you through either laziness or lack of comprehension think I am not.

Or am I not getting it and I should know that it's not acceptable to discuss such articles here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrScorpio]

Choosing to discuss "interesting gun control" here is like going to a hillary site and discussing interesting trump ideas.

[Unretarded]

So pilots shouldn't need licenses, either?

I'm all good with requiring a license and insurance. Without those requirements, nobody would have either one. That becomes a MAJOR quality of life problem for everyone. Motorists, pedestrians, people who own houses next to roads. Might as well not require licenses or insurance for doctors while we're at it.

Pilots have plenty of alternatives for unrestricted travel, plus they transport others for profit, which does require a license.


Courts have acknowledged many times over you do not need a license to operate a motor vehicle for personal reasons of free travel in your daily affairs..........They have also said it is a right to unrestricted travel. You can also walk the highway and ride a bicycle on a freeway if there is no other reasonable alternative.

However in the same breath they also stated you will get a ticket and you will have to pay in one way or the other....as in a fine or lengthy court battle.


More and more rights are taken under this guise all the time........such as a ammo license, a pistol permit etc etc.......what happens when it is a range license, a transportation of firearms license,,,,,,,a hearing license waiver from your state mandated health care......when does it stop and will it stop ?


At one time no license was required and it was thrown out of court many times as they tried to make it law.


Also a pilot gets REAL training, a motor vehicle driver gets pretty much no training........look at all the horrible unsafe licensed drivers......

As with most licenses, not all, it is a burden the state can levy and collect money for and use as a rewards/restriction device.

Technically the supreme court has ruled several times no drivers license is required for non business for profit travel. Like so many rights...good luck with a real world exercise of them.

[tuncas]

Choosing to discuss "interesting gun control" here is like going to a hillary site and discussing interesting trump ideas.

Understood.

My mistake indeed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AceGirlsHusband]

I got my free training; 3 years in the Army,18 years in the AF, and got to make things go BOOM!

Outstanding, Buttfish. Thank you for your service, bro'.

[AceGirlsHusband]

Here's what's wrong with that: the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, are not special privileges granted to Americans, they are universal human rights.

Not when Hillary's Court gets through with it.

[calif 15-22]

Man, either no one actual reads the OP or they do and the comprehension lacks.

From the link you posted!

Proper militias would be comprised of sane men and women who own guns and wish to comply with state law. (And that is key: Militias belong entirely to the statescould easily be accomplished. Precedent exists for large groups of people to assemble for one or two days a year to fulfill a civic obligation, and local governments are quite good at making such assemblies happen, as anyone who has ever been called to jury duty can attest.

Because, as Hamilton writes, formal military training would entail "a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss," how might these militias spend their two days of annual assembly? How about using those days as opportunities for gun safety training. Why not bring the NRA to said meetings to conduct such training? Their political activities aside, the NRA is peerless with respect to teaching such classes. This also allows militia members to "feel each other out" and police one another, as all communities and associations are wont to do.

Based on my reported "limited comprehension", and the bolded above, my comments stand!

2 days a year to "feel each other out" to determine who is qualified to own a firearm?? Really??

Take this forum for example. You can't get 10 people to agree on the proper stance for shooting, or hand grip, or most anything, yet somehow a group that meets for "2 days a year" is going to come up with the qualifications for the entire group?

Again I give you kudos for taking on the subject of "Interesting Gun Control Proposal", but this one my friend is neither interesting or going to help.

[Heretodaygonetomorrow]

The Right to Bear Arms is a Right. Still it would not be unreasonable to ask that people who choose to use the Right, be educated in safe firearms handling.

I had the same idea about using the DROS Fees to cover Free Basic Firearms Handling Classes for whoever wants them, regardless of age. No Final Test, No Pass/Fail Grading. No ridiculous number of hours of training required to "pass" the class.

I hear from people who are interested in firing firearms for the first time, all the time, or people who want to buy some for personal protection. Some of those folks claim that they are too busy to practice, or learn to handle safely. I will not help anyone buy a firearm, who is not willing to have some basic safety instruction, AND is not willing to put in some time practicing before and after they buy a firearm.

While we Pro-Right People need more people to see our side, we don't need more people stuffing untested firearms in their homes without a clue about safe firearms handling or proper firearms use. More accidents from more clueless gun owners is exactly the scenario the Antis are looking for as excuses to further their agenda.

Let's not hand them more ammo.