Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

I was raised US Army. I don't think I could ever get behind a ban, but I'm totally about heavy restrictions after all the shit I see people do with guns! Still totally a fan of 1-2 years in the national guard for a permit to own anything but a hunting rifle. Just because I think it would actually ram safety into people's heads, and a weekend or two a month is a small price to pay to get your fully automatic rifle (I also would support unbanning things like automatics if you used that as the licensing requirement!), as well as ownership audits and excessive penalties to both parties for being caught with someone else's weapon you weren't authorized for.

But I lean heavily towards the "militia" part of the amendment as the sanity check in weapon ownership. Training and understanding of what the hell a gun does!

The police or government coming to your door demanding to see the guns you own would most likely run aground on a few major constitutional issues.

People don't want the government tracking our guns, but there's very little actually saying we can't do it. You have the right to bear arms. You don't have the right to conceal ownership of said arms from the police.

It would be an interesting conversation to have (legally) about why inspections would be unreasonable search if we allow mandatory and surprise inspections by many other federal and state groups for safety purposes.

Generally if you say no they have to come back with a warrant.

Do they actually do that? I thought they asked you to bring it to them (which would be just as good for gun audits. "Your form says you own seven guns. Bring all seven to us on Wednesday."), but I was thinking more state and federal inspections of working conditions and such where you can just show up and spot audit. Or mandatory state inspections of your cars, where you need to bring them in every year to be checked on.

Auditing gun ownership seems entirely reasonable, from a legal standpoint. From a political standpoint, the NRA is adamantly opposed to the Feds even writing down who bought what.

Which is fine, they stand on your doorstep for an hour and then someone rolls up with a warrant. You're still getting audited. But you're assuming I want the cops to do this. I just mean auditors. A firearms regulatory group that simply rolls up and audits ownership and facilitates legal ownership transfers.

Considering almost all government buildings ban bringing guns in to them not sure how that could work.

Uh, the same way gun turnins do. You say it's legal to bring them into the turn in/audit area?

Why are you acting like our laws are carved in stone, Brett? Auditing firearm ownership is trivial, from a legal standpoint. We already have carve outs where you can bring firearms into certain government buildings. And we have rules allowing audits to verify compliance with the law. All we need to add is a database of gun ownership and outlaw resale without transferring the title.

None of this is any more excessive than the paperwork required to own and sell a car.

I think the press conference today might well be a Todd Akin moment in terms of forcing the intellectual heavy guns, so to speak, into the limelight.

This is mainly venting, I'll admit:



"Put armed police officers in every single school in this nation" - You are insane

"A protection program proven to work, and by that I mean armed security" - Proven? Who what where why how when? Is there an empirical study showing that armed security in schools stops shootings? Are you implying that because armed security is proven to work in some situations for some purposes then we can infer it's a good idea for any situation? Are you an idiot? Yes? Yes.

"Every school's going to have a different solution based on its own unique situation [...] every school in America needs to immediately [...] put these security forces in place right now though" - Did you write this on a napkin 5 minutes before taking the podium or do you not know what a contradiction means?

"Asa Hutchinson will lead the effort [...] his experience as United States attorney, director of the Drug Enforcement Agency, and under-secretary of the Department of Homeland Security..." - Oh fucking wonderful, let's get someone responsible for two of the most famously successful programs in US history, homeland security and the drug war, to design a protection program for children. Why not.

"If we truly cherish our kids [I hate you I hate you I hate you I hate you] more than our money, more than our celebrities, more than our sports stadiums, [more than our guns? hahahahahahahahaahhaa of course not don't be silly] we must give them the greatest level of protection possible. And that security is only available with properly trained armed good guys." - Armed good guys. Good guys. That's a thing he just said. A sober, meaningful, and effective approach to securing the safety of children is to talk about people with guns who are good, and people with guns who are bad. The people with guns who are good make the world better, the people with guns who are bad do not. IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

"There is going to be a lot of time for talk and debate... later", "We can't lose precious time debating legislation which won't work" - And there we go, the NRA's philosophy in a nutshell. To decide to put people with guns in every school in the United States is brave and decisive. To debate legislation is irresponsible. We know what the answer is anyway, because it's always the same answer: more guns. It's hard to think of anything more perfectly insane.

It is not reasonable in any state that does not have a gun registry. This is exactly what is covered by the Firearm Owner Protection Act - prohibition of a National Registry. Of course that doesn't mean they don't keep track of them (case in point: Louisiana during Katrina.)




I think the point Kildorn and/or brettmcd, and correct me if I am wrong, are trying to make is that a safe, responsible gun owner should never point the firearm at a person until the self-defense situation necessitates deadly force; however, if for some reason the threat stops being a threat (ie giving up, running away, etc) then a safe, responsible gun-owner should not discharge his/her weapon as it would not longer be used in self - defense.

So something like Canadian gun laws...?

I fully expect to need a repeal of some firearm protection laws, because of the rather silly level of crazy in both pro and anti gun laws right now. Be it ammo count, fire rate, bizarre "you can own this, sell this, import this, etc, but nobody can actually make this in the country" carve outs.

And yeah, my point with sanity and drawing a weapon is that you draw with intent to use. If the other party alters the situation (runs, etc), the situation is over. But by drawing a weapon in the first place basic gun safety says you don't draw as a threat, you draw with intent to carry through with shooting if the situation remains the same.

I'm a huge dick about firearm safety.

Seriously, the NRA -- a group which defends the 2nd Amendment at least partly on the grounds that we may need to defend ourselves from the Federal government -- is advocating putting a Federal police officer in every school in America, and creating a national registry of the mental ill, administered by... the Federal government?

Also note: the NRA is keeping the focus SOLIDLY ON THE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS which are really the horrific tip of a very large iceberg. The rest of the iceberg cannot be handled by additional police in schools.

Proposed: an amendment to the Second Amendment of the Constitution to the United States of America.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms serve in the duly-constituted armed forces of the United States of America, or of their state of residence, shall not be infringed.

It would make much more sense to simply repeal the second amendment rather than changing it into an essentially tautological statement about the fact that the military has weapons.

But neither idea has a snowball's chance in hell.

So you want to ban all private ownership of guns? Just want to make sure I am reading this correctly as that would be what this amendment would do.

Nope, I want to remove the second amendment's ban on banning guns. It would be up to legislatures to do what they want at that point.

I'm fine with that too, although I don't think it's completely tautalogical. It would emphasize gays' rights to serve. It would prevent a controlling faction from excluding their rivals (the way Shiites exclude Sunnis or vice versa in some countries). Although I think that's already covered by Equal Protection.

It's just a silly idea, but I think something needs to change to get us on track to meaningful gun control.

I have some issues with that idea MrsWidget.
1. Not everyone is allowed to serve no matter how much they want to. Our Armed Forces have standards that some may not be able to meet, no matter how patriotic they are. Then there is also the fact that there is only so much room in the budget for so many soldiers.

2. The entire point of the militia mentioned, regardless of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, is that it is of the people, mandated by the people and controlled by the people being necessary for a FREE state.

While the Reserves and National Guard resemble the idea of a militia they are part time Armed Forces, mandated by the government and controlled by the government.


Truly if you want mandatory military service, then it cannot apply to just the 2nd Amendment. It should apply to most, if not all, rights as a citizen of the United States. You want the rights, earn them by military or civil service for a predetermined time period, I know that is very Heinlein, but it would be a fair system.

You are in no way reading that correctly, unless you are fucking crazy. Something not being a constitutionally protected right does not equal something being "banned."

I'm pretty okay with something that really just reduces to "I'm a huge dick about not accidentally killing people."

From my perspective it certainly seems to have revealed just how intellectually bankrupt the NRA / guns rights absolutist movement is. On the other hand, I'm hardly representative of the American electorate, so who fucking knows.

I think LaPierre could have just guzzled bull semen until he vomited for all the difference it would make because lobbying dollars. Lots and lots of lobbying dollars and a constituency whose enthusiasm wouldn't wane no matter what he did.

One of my cow-orkers used the phrase "from my cold, dead hands" today and told me he was going to be burying his AR15 in his backyard. Note that he has never actually mounted sights on the rifle.

I know I also advocated this, but I'm aware of the potential problems that would come with the constantly shifting political landscape. Having gun rights swing with the legislature every two to four years would be incredibly goddamned annoying and would likely exacerbate the problem by further encouraging people to obtain extra guns and hide them. For that solution to work, I think we'd have to wait until public opinion truly buries this thing so far in the other direction that neither party would want to touch it.

Also, I think I should be allowed to find people who say "We need armed officers in schools! That will solve this problem!", grab them by their ear, and drag their stupid face in front of this.

Gist: There was an armed officer at Columbine. He shot at and missed Eric Harris. He didn't stop the shooting from happening.

I know I advocated for putting heavy duty locks/doors on classrooms, and I stand by that. As I mentioned, it's attacking the problem from the other side, which is what the NRA is doing. I don't think there's anything wrong with advocating that, but it's idiotic to suggest that we should do ONLY that. It's an out of control train. Of course you have to find a way to stop it while minimizing casualties along the way. But you also have to ask how the train got out of the station without an engineer and, you know, try to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Is he burying it in cement so noone will get access to it? Or bury it in a safe spot as a prepper in case of a dire emergency?

Who's going to pay for the extra police officers? Are people willing to pay more in taxes for them?

Got in a friendly debate today:
Gun Jackass: Even if you ban all guns criminals will get their hands on them. They'll just come into my house, tie me up, rape my wife, and take my guns.
Me: Wait you, you have guns for home defense but someone will break into your house, rape you, rape your wife, rape your fish and steal your guns? Then why do you have guns? Your guns can defend everything in your house but themselves? That's some Zen shit right there.
Gun Jackass: But if I'm not home they can just take them.
Me: You don't lock your guns up?
Gun Jackass: Well, not me, not me but someone, someone who doesn't lock up their guns.
Me: So someone who doesn't lock up their guns gets them stolen and can just go out and buy seven more to be stolen? They have the right to just leave them laying around the house with no way to secure them?
It then devolved into calling me a Communist, then him calling for more government regulations on banks, at which point I said "You want the government controlling the banks? That sounds familiar comrade!" and he started calling me a sheep and making "bah" noises every time I talked.
I then proceeded to call him "comrade" and point out all the stuff he was using that taxes pay for.

boy, you know my idea sucks if Elyscape doesn't like it. RETRACTED~!

Several months ago I had a chat with a guy at the range. He lived in a basement apartment and it was broken into. Apparently the thieves initially just wanted his big screen tv but they spotted his gun cabinet. It was probably a cheap StackOn cabinet that's technically fine by Canadian gun storage laws but two guys could easily lift it up and carry it out of his apartment. He lost about a dozen firearms, including some collector grade rifles and pistols. By law, gun owners have to report to the police of any stolen firearms immediately or they will be held responsible.

Canada laws isn't that specific on how strongly secure the gun cabinets or safes have to be. If the thieves know you are out of town and have days they WILL eventually get into your safe.

Sorry but no. Not if it's a good safe secured to the floor. This is my area of expertise by the way, I get paid to be good at this.
Just looking at that "Stack on" and I can say it's nothing more than an aluminum box. If the thieves hadn't carried it away they could have used a hammer to bend the walls in. A good safe is solid steel and can take punishment in laboratory conditions with laboratory equipment. It's also secured from drilling by all but experts with precise schematics AND bolted solidly into the floor from the inside.
If you are serious about securing your guns no one will get to them short of an expert with expert equipment and hours. And someone that good with that quality equipment isn't breaking into your house to steal guns worth a fraction of a fraction of the rig he's using to drill the safe.

I report, you decide.

Okay, no. Armed forces and paramilitaries not tasked with serious situations will take whoever they can get. Special forces are picky, SWAT teams are picky, professional fire departments are picky; the national guard will take whoever it fucking gets as long as you're not 110 pounds soaking wet. I don't even need to Google and read the requirements to know that.

It should be noted at this point that I mentioned a few days back how an old dude's safe was broken into. Now you know how. I did preface this by saying it was a cheap safe, right?

And yet, here in Canada where "safe" means "aluminum box with a lock" we still manage to be not quite so fucking insane as the USA.

NotSureIfSerious.gif

Elyscape I summon thee!

Okay, well, if you're going to implement the MrsWidget / Kildorn modest proposal of not allowing you to bear firearms of X seriousness and you're unable to pass the requirement that you not be insane in the motherfucking membrane would than not be the point? Granted, asthmatics get a raw deal there, and something would have to be worked out for them, but it's not like a minor modification of verbiage would fix that.