Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 13, 2017

Open mike night on the DR. The argument has been made that new, tailored gun control laws are in order because our current laws (including reporting of purchases, etc..) are inadequate. Put on your thinking caps, kids?

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

1. Ban all firearms
2. Confiscate all privately owned firearms
3. Disarm the police
4. Make the production and sale of firearms illegal
5. Expand health care to cover mental health issues
6. Greatly expand the money spent on mental health issues
7. Subsidize and incentivize professionals to enter the mental health field
8. Decriminalize actions based on mental health issues
9. Stop the drug war
10. Make Truthhurts Emperor For Life

#1 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-13 12:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the laws they currently have are enforced I don't think we need anymore.
I don't know enough about the gun show caveats everyone talks about to know whether or not something on that end needs fixing.

Waiting 19 months for a pistol permit in my county is obscene.
They used to make you buy a pistol within 10 days of getting your license. Just recently they removed the window and you have no timeframe to purchase one.
I think there is a 24 hour wait period in NY for a rifle or shotgun. I haven't purchased one since that process went into effect (affect?...I never get those right).

Confiscation won't work. For many, the guns they have had been handed down through generations. Some worth big $$$.

#2 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-13 01:02 PM | Reply

Require proper standardized training in the safe use, storage and handling of firearms before letting people carry them in public.

Require that they actually be able to hit something with their gun as well... a bit more rigorous than hitting a garbage can lid from 8 feet away.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-13 01:05 PM | Reply

Require liability insurance for gun owners just like car owners. Let insurance companies assess the risk by reviewing their potential customer's gun safety history, training, etc. and the type of weapon they are agreeing to or not agreeing to insure.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-13 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Require liability insurance for gun owners just like car owners. Let insurance companies assess the risk by reviewing their potential customer's gun safety history, training, etc. and the type of weapon they are agreeing to or not agreeing to insure.

#4 | POSTED BY DANNI

That's an interesting idea.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-13 01:11 PM | Reply

Issue a gun to all citizens when they turn 18, because guns keep us safe.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-13 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Require liability insurance for gun owners just like car owners. Let insurance companies assess the risk by reviewing their potential customer's gun safety history, training, etc. and the type of weapon they are agreeing to or not agreeing to insure. - #4 | Posted by Danni at 2017-11-13 01:09 PM

I doubt that this requirement would make it through an argument that it infringes on the 2nd Amendment. If it did, at least the policies would be incredibly cheap, as they would only cover accidental injuries. Figure how many accidental injuries per gun-owner population. Factor in 20% premium for profit, and you're talking nearly nothing per year. Basically the same cost as providing liability insurance for your car, but only when it isn't in motion. Hmm...I think I'm going to start a LLC and call it Gun Insurance Inc. Sell 1 policy for a penny a year.

#7 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-13 02:00 PM | Reply

Is it even legal for insurance companies to price gun ownership into rates?

Eberly?

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-13 02:07 PM | Reply

#3 looks good imo.

If guns are a right like healthcare,then the gov needs to pick up cost of insurance.

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-13 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

all the above except X.

collections/antiques can be made not to operate.

perhaps some very few exceptions for well regulated hunting and certain police actions.

#10 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-13 02:37 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

The firearm insurance idea is one of the few really good ones:
1. It doesn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment
2. Different models, demographics, training, history, et al would be cost forcing functions, just like automobile insurance. A single-shot 20 gauge owned by a 40-year old in Wyoming would be vastly cheaper to insure than a Glock 17 owned by a 21 year old in Baltimore. Owners would be economically encouraged to receive training (although as we've seen with the driver's education industry, the costs of training are ridiculously high). Proof of ownership of a gun safe would also be a discount.
3. There would also need to be some discussion of the penalty for possession without insurance - probably aligned with a similar infraction of driving with lapsed insurance. If lawmakers pushed for immediate confiscation, the bill would die an early death.

I, for one, have no issue with limiting the size of box magazines, but it's bad legislation - a poison pill. I think it's a slippery slope and it's damned near unenforceable due to the number of magazines already out there and the development of 3D printing. Expect major pushback on this one.

Another one: The British Bonus. Commit armed robbery with a knife: 10 years. Commit armed robbery with a gun: 35 years. A two-bit bonus for any crime committed with a firearm, and no part of the 25 year bonus is subject to early parole or reduction of sentence.

#11 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-13 02:58 PM | Reply

collections/antiques can be made not to operate.

Yeah, I can pull the 427 out of a Shelby Cobra, too....but then it's not a 427 Shelby Cobra. If you render an antique firearm unusable, you've destroyed it.

#12 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-13 03:02 PM | Reply

I've heard that many of the victims of the Las Vegas shooter can't afford to pay their hospital bills, insurance to buy AR-15 style weapons would probably be quite expensive which, IMHO, would discourage the purchase of them which would be a good thing.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-13 03:13 PM | Reply

"A two-bit bonus for any crime committed with a firearm, and no part of the 25 year bonus is subject to early parole or reduction of sentence."

All the more reason for cops to plant a gun on you.

The British thing works because there's only a few hundred black market firearms in the UK.

Now, if every firearm was tracked, it might not be so ripe for abuse. But for some reason tracking guns before they get used in crimes terrifies gun fondlers.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-13 03:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#14

Tracked? Like with a GPS chip?

I'm not being snarky.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-13 03:28 PM | Reply

No, like a list of serial number, date of manufacture, bill of lading, point of distribution.

Like how when they do a food recall they know what food is affected, who made it, which consumer endpoints got it, time frame, etc.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-13 03:43 PM | Reply

No, like a list of serial number, date of manufacture, bill of lading, point of distribution.

I didn't realize that wasn't already being done.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-13 03:46 PM | Reply

Funny flag.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-13 03:48 PM | Reply

#16 You mean like this form?

www.google.com

#19 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-11-13 03:48 PM | Reply

#19 Funnier flag

#20 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-13 03:53 PM | Reply

The British thing works because there's only a few hundred black market firearms in the UK.

Police reveal there are 277,000 guns in Scotland as they warn of thriving black market trade in firearms

www.dailyrecord.co.uk

Guns are regularly changing hands in London for only £200, highlighting the frightening spiral in violent crime, says Met Commissioner Sir John Stevens today.

He adds that prices are tumbling because gangs have been importing huge numbers of weapons as they become ever more ruthless.

An astonishing 600 guns are being recovered by police every year, but they admit this might be a fraction of the true number on the streets. For a little extra cash, criminals can even get hold of the fearsome Uzi sub-machinegun.

www.dailymail.co.uk

#21 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-13 04:00 PM | Reply

Pass a resolution saying that because this is America... Nothing Can Be Done.

So let the Gun Games begin.

And may the odds be ever in your favor.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-13 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If guns are a right like healthcare,then the gov needs to pick up cost of insurance.

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris

If guns have any connection with health care, then I propose preventing fat people from owning guns.

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-13 05:58 PM | Reply

Make Thoughts and Prayers our National Anthem.

#24 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-13 06:08 PM | Reply

Is it true that Congress is a gun-free zone?

I keep hearing our mass shooting keep happening in gun free zones.

Thought there might be a silver lining to that story, is all.

Maybe we should allow guns in Congress. Since Congress has allowed them to be around us.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-13 06:13 PM | Reply

Amend current laws to include "accidentally" injury or death as a criminal act.

Unless the firearm is demonstrably defective there's no such thing as an accidental discharge.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-13 06:17 PM | Reply

there's no such thing as an accidental discharge.

#26 | Posted by jpw

My Gun had an "accidental discharge" once.

I only planned on 2 boys.

Now I have three.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-13 06:20 PM | Reply

Make it difficult to get ammunition outside of a firing range.

Require extensive training like for automobiles.

Graduated license system with multiple classifications like for automobiles.

Have a local "firearms registrar" like Japan that you must check in with monthly and reregister annually/semianually.

Store weapons and ammunition in separate certified safes.

Smart gun locks and other technology should be leveraged.
-----------

Basically reinstate the words "well-regulated".

#28 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-13 06:24 PM | Reply

Let's disband the Army and just rely on the militia.

Since the militia can protect the security of a free state, what do we actually need an army for? Anyone?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-13 06:30 PM | Reply

Reinstating the Court's position prior to Scalia's wholly non-conservative, NRA-based modern expansion of the meaning of the Second Amendment would do wonders for gun laws.

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?

www.newyorker.com

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-13 07:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#30 | POSTED BY CORKY

My favorite parts are the ones Scalia gutted from it; "Well-regulated" and "being necessary to the security of a free State".

If average Joe Redneck with a gun is useless against Russian election interference or North Korean ballistics, then average Joe Redneck's bearing of arms is indifferent to the security of the free State, meaning their is no 2a given right for him to bear those arms. At least if we use the text of 2a, not the Scalia bastardized version.

#31 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-13 07:51 PM | Reply

Why not just outlaw crime. Then there would be no criminals. Problem solved.

#32 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-13 07:52 PM | Reply

#31

Does it say only members of a militia have the right to keep and bear arms?

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-13 07:59 PM | Reply

Make it illegal to own guns without your wife/girlfriend/mom's permission. Most gun victims are their owners. Most owners don't harm anyone with a gun. Disarm the kooks. Women know who.

#34 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-13 08:23 PM | Reply

"Does it say only members of a militia have the right to keep and bear arms?"

Does it say a militia is necessary for the security of a free state?
Yes it does.

Is that true?
No it is not.

Is there such a thing in law as "fruits of a poisoned sentence?"

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-13 09:33 PM | Reply

#11
no mandatory minimums.

#36 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-13 11:24 PM | Reply

36 posts and less than 2 ideas that can even survive a court challenge. Talk about a dead end..

#37 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 07:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How about stop selling guns to people with known mental illnesses.

#38 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-14 07:36 AM | Reply

Why not just outlaw crime

Well, we already outlaw speeding, so I guess since people still speed, we should do away with speed limits.

#39 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-14 07:37 AM | Reply

I can't believe all the morons on this site that think the 2nd is about the militia. You do know that women, cripples, and old people owned guns throughout American history, and they aren't eligible to part of the militia right? The 2nd has never been interpreted as an amendment allowing only militia members to own guns. Ever. That's like saying the 13th legalized slavery.

#40 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-14 07:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#38 Read line 11f of form 4473 that I posted in #19.

#37 Sad isn't it. Danni's was alright though not a horrible idea. I don't think it would have stopped any of the mass shootings we just had though.

#41 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-11-14 08:20 AM | Reply

Make only single shot firearms legal. That goes for the police as well as the citizenry.

#42 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-14 08:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#37 Sad isn't it. Danni's was alright though not a horrible idea.

#41 | POSTED BY PINKYANTHEBRAIN AT 2017-11-14 08:20 AM | FLAG:

Not sad, expected. How can you suggest laws that will hold up to legal challenges if you don't know anything about the subject?

Danni's idea exists, somewhat. Mandatory insurance won't survive a legal challenge. However, liability for accidents involving firearms is covered by your homeowner insurance. Insurers can adjust those rates based on perceived risk. Some ask, some don't, it's up to them.

#43 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 08:43 AM | Reply

Everyone who wants a carry permit should be required to attend training one Saturday a month for four hours. Miss a session and your rights are suspended until you catch up.

Let's regulate our well-regulated militia better than any militia has ever been regulated.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-14 09:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Require liability insurance for gun owners just like car owners. Let insurance companies assess the risk by reviewing their potential customer's gun safety history, training, etc. and the type of weapon they are agreeing to or not agreeing to insure.

#4 | Posted by danni

The problem with this idea is, it won't work. It will be just as effective as current law at stopping the misuse of firearms. Just like there are people who drive without auto insurance(over 14%). Thugs, criminals and gang bangers will not buy insurance. Although, it would create another lucrative revenue stream for insurance companies from the law abiding citizen.

#45 | Posted by Daniel at 2017-11-14 09:49 AM | Reply

"The problem with this idea is, it won't work. It will be just as effective as current law at stopping the misuse of firearms."

At first, maybe. But as more data is gathered regarding who is insurable and who isn't, you'll see less and less repeat offenders.

"Thugs, criminals and gang bangers will not buy insurance."

If the penalties are stern enough, some certainly will. Ever take macrostatistics?

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 09:54 AM | Reply

Everyone who wants a carry permit should be required to attend training one Saturday a month for four hours. Miss a session and your rights are suspended until you catch up.

#44 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-14 09:28 AM | REPLY

Training intervals used to be high. They were extended. There was zero net change in the crime statistics for people with a CHL, per the mandatory state reporting here. It's quality, not quantity.

#47 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 10:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"like there are people who drive without auto insurance(over 14%)"

So, if auto insurance weren't required, do you believe that percentage would go up, or down?

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 10:06 AM | Reply

There was zero net change in the crime statistics for people with a CHL, per the mandatory state reporting here.

This unattributed stat proves squat.

A society that was serious about guns would make people train regularly who wanted to carry them around all the time. Cops have to do it but we let any rando fork over some bucks and strap on a gun to shop at Target.

#49 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-14 10:09 AM | Reply

#48: Of course, it would definitely go up. But, what does that have to do with the percentage that won't even when required by law?

#50 | Posted by Daniel at 2017-11-14 10:13 AM | Reply

If the penalties are stern enough, some certainly will. Ever take macrostatistics?

If you are in possession of a weapon that you have a reasonable expectation will be used in the commission of a crime, are you EVER going to pay insurance which is likely tied to the serial number of that weapon? Do you really believe you or anyone else could come up with a financial penalty for carrying an uninsured weapon that would be worse than the penalties we already impose for illegal concealed weapons, possession of an illegal weapon or a stolen weapon, use of a weapon in the commission of a crime, etc?

I'm not against the idea of insurance, but listen closely: if anti-gunners try to take the idea too far they'll be holding an empty bag at the end.

#51 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-14 10:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This unattributed stat proves squat.

#49 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-14 10:09 AM | REPLY | FLAG

It's attributed. Texas maintains the stats. It's transparent, public data. If you actually cared to have an informed opinion you can look them up. They're on the same site they've always been. The stats haven't seen any meaningful change, nor trends, in crimes committed by CHL permit holders, despite the training interval being increased. By your logic, there should be more crimes with less training. There is not, which means quality matters, not quantity.

#52 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 10:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#46 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-11-14 09:54 AM | FLAG:

Homeowner insurance already has this option. It's so irrelevant the vast majority of companies don't care. They simply don't ask nor calculate it. Firearm accidents are covered just like any other accident on your property. The only time insurance actually cares is if you have a rider covering a high value collection, and then they only care because of the dollar value involved.

What they do not cover is crime committed with the firearms. This will not happen under any circumstances, even the one being proffered as gun control regulation.

#53 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 10:34 AM | Reply

Now I do note that where Rcade is from, the harrowing, terrifying, brutally violent land of Florida, the training standard sucks compared to the glorious, multi-cultural melting pot of Texas. So I can see why he'd want a lot of training, but if the training already sucks a lot isn't going to help you. Again, quality, not quantity.

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 10:35 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"are you EVER going to pay insurance which is likely tied to the serial number of that weapon?"

So you're saying the serial number can be linked back to the criminal?

"Do you really believe you or anyone else could come up with a financial penalty for carrying an uninsured weapon that would be worse than the penalties we already impose for illegal concealed weapons"

Sure...if you're really serious about it. But it doesn't have to be financial: simply make lack of insurance a prohibiting event. with maybe one warning. Then make violation of that prohibition a capital offense, as well as all gun-on-human crimes.

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 10:44 AM | Reply

"What they do not cover is crime committed with the firearms."

Okay, so we'll include that language in the law requiring insurance.

"This will not happen under any circumstances"

As I alluded earlier, only if we're not serious enough.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 10:48 AM | Reply

Okay, so we'll include that language in the law requiring insurance.
"This will not happen under any circumstances"
As I alluded earlier, only if we're not serious enough.
#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 10:48 AM

Your plan to curb gun violence is to require, by law, that people carry insurance that no company on earth will offer in order to have a fire-arm?
Just call it a gun ban and save everyone the time.
You're sounding like people that will allow you all the abortions you want between the hours of 2500 and 2600 on the 6th Thursday of every other February.

#57 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-14 11:14 AM | Reply

Okay, so we'll include that language in the law requiring insurance.

#56 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-11-14 10:48 AM | REPLY

Better research that one council, it doesn't sound plausible in terms of liability.

#58 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 11:33 AM | Reply

So you're saying the serial number can be linked back to the criminal?

You're the one saying criminals would buy insurance. Do you have a different idea of how a firearm owner would be linked to specific weapon for the purposes of insurance?

#59 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-14 11:58 AM | Reply

Danforth,
No criminal is going to insure a gun that they aren't permitted to have. They don't insure cars they steal either.

They should stiffen the current penalties for illegal gun possession. Maybe mandatory minimums for a second offense.

#60 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-14 12:28 PM | Reply

"They should stiffen the current penalties for illegal gun possession."

But how are they going to find the illegal gun owners, without some means of tracking guns?

And since there's no means of tracking guns that the gun lovers can tolerate, you are basically saying "Enforce the existing laws."

But the existing laws are unenforceable, until that illegal gun owner brings his gun out in public and starts using it.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 12:45 PM | Reply

#61 I'm not even certain that tolerance is a factor, Snoofy. How do you track an illegal gun? Tracking the firearms of legal owners is easy - they self report. Those aren't the weapons being used in the overwhelming percentage of firearm homicides, unfortunately. What's your firearm tracking solution? I started this thread to elicit ideas...

#62 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-14 12:53 PM | Reply

"How do you track an illegal gun?"

You track the guns, and you track them to people who aren't supposed to own them.
Right now guns aren't tracked until after they get used in a crime.
I'm saying, track them from manufacture through distribution through retail.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 12:55 PM | Reply

Gun fondlers have it in their head that if the government has a list of all the gun owners, they can use that list to take the guns away.

I'm proposing exactly that. Using that list to take guns away from people who shouldn't have them.

But gun humpers will never go for it. Because they fear having gun owner's name on a government list. Ironically, their guns are supposed to protect them from a government that would use such a list to try to disarm them. So I guess they must not really believe that, but whatever.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 12:58 PM | Reply

#63 That makes absolutely ZERO sense. I asked you how you track the guns, and you answer "you track the guns". Those guns are ALREADY tracked from OEM through to the retailer and then to the purchaser, because the serial number, make and model of the firearm is on Form 4473. Your definition of tracking a firearm is already happening.

#65 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-14 01:10 PM | Reply

They're not tracked. They're capable of being tracked, but they don't get tracked until such time as the need arises. The trackung info resides with the gun dealer until Uncle Sam's ATF goons come and ask for it.

A complete list of all guns and their owners would tell law enforcement whose guns to take away after a felony conviction, domestic violence conviction, suicide attempt, etc.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 02:38 PM | Reply

Right now guns aren't tracked until after they get used in a crime.
I'm saying, track them from manufacture through distribution through retail.

#63 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-14 12:55 PM | REPLY

Not true. It's logged for 20 years. For 4473 contains the serial numbers being transferred and it's logged for 20 years. The ATF can walk in and get it any time they want, they just can't consolidate it all into 1 master list. Everything they need to prosecute a given crime with a firearm that is trackable already exists. Most of the time they just don't. You don't prosecute victims of theft, and the government is perceived to let many gunwalkers slide. Maybe they cut deals, maybe they turn states witness, maybe they just don't think they can win the case, I'm sure it varies.

"Licensees shall retain each Form 4473 and Form 4473(LV) for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition. Where a licensee has initiated a NICS check for a proposed firearms transaction, but the sale, delivery, or transfer of the firearm is not made, the licensee shall record any transaction number on the Form 4473, and retain the Form 4473 for a period of not less than 5 years after the date of the NICS inquiry. Forms 4473 shall be retained in the licensee's records as provided in § 478.124(b): Provided, That Forms 4473 with respect to which a sale, delivery or transfer did not take place shall be separately retained in alphabetical (by name of transferee) or chronological (by date of transferee's certification) order."

#67 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 02:42 PM | Reply

Ahh yeah you get the system. Welcome to the compromise. It's not a bad system when the government does their job.

#68 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 02:43 PM | Reply

Just fyi, but registrations in the form Snoofy wants do exist. It's state by state, like background checks on private party transactions. The general way it is implemented is reporting through the state DOJ, which imho is far better suited to implement a confiscation program on people that forfeited their rights than consolidating at a federal level and trying to trickle back down to the state.

#69 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 02:49 PM | Reply

"The ATF can walk in and get it any time they want"

That's not the same as all guns being tracked.

Tracking guns does not infringe the Second Amendment. We should do it. We have access to the pieces, but nobody puts them all together.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 02:57 PM | Reply

voting is a right.
2nd amendment is a right.
Requiring an ID to vote is deemed too steep a financial burden to impose on exercising a right
We are discussing forcing someone to purchase insurance to exercise their 2nd amendment.

Sounds about right for this place.

#71 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2017-11-14 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Requiring an ID to vote is deemed too steep a financial burden to impose on exercising a right."

Because a poll tax or any other tax is expressly forbidden. That's in the Constitution. They added it because poll taxes were being used to disenfranchise people.

So if you don't want a firearm insurance, pass an Amendment, like we did for poll taxes. No?

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 03:13 PM | Reply

Tracking voters is needed to ensure the right to vote.

But tracking guns is seen as a threat to the right to gun.

Why the double standard?

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 03:14 PM | Reply

It's put together in California and several other states right now. Why don't they enforce it in states? They consciously choose not to. Lack of political will, fueled by massive logistical issues and the political problem of police violence.

A firearm confiscation is a high risk deployment, police send full SWAT teams. In just California you're looking at 47,000 deployments annually, based on the national firearm ownership average, for just domestic violence and excluding all other crime.

Kind of curious, how much police violence are you willing to have the state inflict daily to achieve the endgame of confiscation? or do you see this going smoothly where now convicted criminals just hand over their firearms?

#74 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 03:17 PM | Reply

you have to show an ID to get an LTC, why not to vote? why the double standard?

#75 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2017-11-14 03:27 PM | Reply

"Kind of curious, how much police violence are you willing to have the state inflict daily to achieve the endgame of confiscation?"

I'd say the same as is needed to enforce [INSERT ANY LAW HERE].

But let's be clear, we are talking about enforcing existing laws.

I hear from gun fondlers that we need to enforce existing laws.

But now it sounds like you're having second thoughts; am I reading you right?

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 04:48 PM | Reply

I think California should definitely enforce their laws as written. Let the chips fall where they may.

#77 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 05:09 PM | Reply

New York also needs to get on with running down the at least 250,000 unregistered assault rifles. The compliance level was practically non-existence, which means a quarter million carbine and rifle armed criminals.

Any opinion on why Democrat states pass laws, and then do absolutely nothing to enforce the laws they just voted for?

#78 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 05:25 PM | Reply

Probably the same reason Republican states pass laws, and then do absolutely nothing to enforce the laws they just voted for.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 07:06 PM | Reply

and that is?

#80 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-14 07:32 PM | Reply

"Danforth, No criminal is going to insure a gun that they aren't permitted to have."

That's why the second offense should be a capital one. No third offenders.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 07:45 PM | Reply

It's already a felony to have a firearm in a commission of a crime.

You're frog marching your way to racist 3 strike and mandatory minimum policies in the name of perceived security.

#82 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-15 07:39 AM | Reply

"It's already a felony to have a firearm in a commission of a crime."

But is it a prohibitive event? I.e., does the perp forgo all rights to own a firearm after that?

"You're frog marching your way to racist 3 strike and mandatory minimum policies in the name of perceived security."

I'm not talking about strikes of just any kind. I'm talking about the guy who can't seem to learn using a gun with a crime is NG.

#83 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-15 08:09 AM | Reply

Yes. Felons can't own or even hold a firearm. It's a felony with stiff punishments. It's a felony that comes with prison time . Look up your state criminal code. Firearm and other weapons always drastically increase the punishment when a crime separate from that firearm possession is being committed.

Liability insurance discussion has zero bearing on actual criminals. It's for accidents, which homeowner insurance already covers.

#84 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-15 08:25 AM | Reply

Did a little reading, and felons, at least in Texas, can have their rights restored eventually. Serve your time, handle your fines, finish probation/half-way housing/etc, and after you have paid your debt to society you can have your right restored after 5 years. That's not unreasonable. If you can't trust somebody who did their societal rehab and waited 5 years, we should probably have never let them out to begin with.

#85 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-15 09:45 AM | Reply

Tracking voters is needed to ensure the right to vote.
But tracking guns is seen as a threat to the right to gun.
Why the double standard?
#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 03:14 PM

Tracking guns isn't the same as tracking voters. Did you mean to say we need to track votes?
I accept your plan to track everyone who has a right to own guns.

We'll start with a list called 'everyone' then subtract the people who aren't eligible. Maybe through a National system? We don't want the system to take too long, let's make it Instant. The only people who don't have a right are Criminal or Crazy right? Hmm...2 C's sound like extra paperwork. Let's let C stand for either. This system can't be expected to tell the future, but will base people's eligibility on their Background.

A National Instant C(riminal or razy) background System that people can check. I think I like the sound of that.

Anytime someone wants to purchase a weapon, we should allow the seller to access that list and determine if the person is eligible, wouldn't you agree?

Opening up the NICS to everyone instead of having to visit a fire-arms dealer is a change to the system we all should get behind.

#86 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-15 11:23 AM | Reply

"I accept your plan to track everyone who has a right to own guns."

That's not the plan.
The plan is to track every gun, in one database, all at the same time.
Don't wait until the gun gets used in a crime, and then get the records as part of the law enforcement cleaning up the bodies.

Do it before there are bodies.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-15 03:42 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort