Common ground on guns?

All too often, but especially while the spilled blood is still warm, the gun control cabal trots out their ineffective [if not un-Constitutional] proposals…always in an attempt to nibble at the edges, instead of pursuing their true aim.

We of the Constitutional and civil liberties camp, regard them with expected and insulted derision….and while I’m not sure that I would support the measure below, for a variety of reasons…..it did strike me at least, as a novel and possibly not un-Constitutional proposal. I’m interested to hear what gun rights and gun control supporters alike…think of the intent and the effectiveness of such.

Kevin, who runs The Smallest Minority blog, had an exchange online with someone they knew

Here’s an alternative for you: Instead of applying for a “firearms ownership ID,” how about the State runs a full background check on you when issuing a State ID: driver’s license, whatever. If you’re a prohibited person, that ID gets a “No Guns” symbol – you know, the pistol in the international circle with a slash through it. That way, if you go buy a gun, the seller – FFL or private person – asks to see your ID and if it doesn’t have that symbol, they’re free to sell to you. If you’re slapped with a restraining order, arrested for domestic violence, whatever, you’re required to turn in your ID for new ID. If you don’t, a warrant is issued for your arrest until you do, AND they can force you to divest yourself from whatever you own (as they can now, but never seem to bother to).

That way, the government knows only who’s eligible and who’s not. Not specifically who legally OWNS guns, and who does not.

Thoughts?

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Common ground on guns?

  1. Well, it seems workable, and pretty well built-in efficient, but there remain some questions. Unless we can rein in the free transference of guns, the criminal availability problem will remain.

    JMJ

    Like

    • When we have POTUS [and every gun control group on down the list] attempting to use Australia as a goal….with the registration and confiscation regime they introduced…..you surely don’t think gun owning citizens will trust the intent of these people, do you?

      One has to look at the broader implications of mandating such requirements on free citizens’ ability to acquire and dispose of lawful and Constitutionally protected items.

      Like

  2. I give it my tentative approval. This is also tangible proof that a prospective buyer of one of my guns is not a criminal. (btw, I never, NEVER EVER sell a firearm to someone I do not know very well).

    We still need some way to keep guns from crazy people, but as we discussed yesterday, that is fraught with problems.

    We have gun laws now, including ones that state convicted felons cannot possess firearms, and the government can’t even enforce that one…

    Like

  3. 40% of guns are purchased legally with no background checks. No one knows how many are simply passed around out there. Probably many millions. The prevalence of guns in our society is a big problem. If all guns were owned legally, the average gun owner would possess somewhere over ten guns, perhaps much more. As it is now, they legally own 8! It’s loony. But I digress. The sheer number of guns out there just unaccountably passed from person to person are a real problem that must be addressed. I like the background check idea, but ALL transactions must be handled as such. And we have to have accountability and responsibility for the disposition of our weapons. And we need a mass buy back to get as many off the streets as possible.

    JMJ

    Like

    • I’ll ask this again. Define “buyback”. Do you mean it as the ineffective exercises we see on a semi-regular basis…where trash and inoperable firearms are turned in for cash…..or do you refer to the perfidious “buyback” programs such as occurred in Australia….which was nothing short of confiscation?

      If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you are very pro-gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. – Stefan Molyneux

      Like

      • The government has maybe 1.5% of the guns. I’m not anti-gun. I’m just wary of irresponsible idiots.

        IF we had a system like one described, and IF all transactions were hereafter regulated in such a way. THEN a mass buy-back program would help to get the guns off the streets. I’d prefer the Australian model, but it’s not some ultimate demand, nor is it necessary to any particular argument I would make.

        JMJ

        Like

      • So while you’re now on record as endorsing confiscation, you haven’t explained how a voluntary “buyback” (incorrect term) would work, considering their record of ineffectiveness this far….or for that matter, how they would be funded.

        Like

      • CI, you get really weird on this subject. I have no idea what study you’re talking about. I specifically pointed out a buy back program wouldn’t do anything without further regulation. I did not go on record directly about “confiscation” but yes, personally, I’d like see stricter rules for what sorts of guns people may buy and sell. I do not, however, see much chance of that last thing happening in our lifetimes. 40 years ago we were talking about banning handguns. Now we can’t decide if it’s a good idea to shoot dozens of rounds from a military rifle in a few seconds. It’s not a direction toward more control. You loons have had your way for many years now.

        JMJ

        Like

      • I’m referring of course, to your notion of ‘40% of sales’….surely when you cite a statistic, you know where it originates, no?
        When you specifically supported the Australian model, you supported confiscation. Surely, in using an analogy for your premise, you know at least the gist of what you speak of, no? And finally, when you trot out “military rifle”, you of course realize that not only are the semi-automatic rifles in question not in service with our military [the civilian rifles not being the select fire rifles in service], but every mechanical [and most cosmetic/ergonomic] feature found in firearms today, has it’s genesis as being created for, or by, the military. Weird huh?

        Like

    • So if I sell a gun (or a toy as you refer to it as) to my brother in law, I have to do a background check on him? And that’s going to make the streets of Chicago safer? You’re the nut, Les.

      Like

    • Well, at least your predictable. After a short time of being semi-reasonable and civil, when pressed for substance on your position, you revert to the tantrum. You are confused and can’t back up your position on the PLCAA; you are confused and can’t back up your position on confiscation [or magical “buybacks”]; and you are confused and can’t back up your position on the 2nd Amendment, Constitutional rights and civil liberties.

      In short, you don’t have a position…you have a script.

      Like

      • No, CI, I’ve just been around enough to be able to cut through the bullshit and see heart of the matter. You want guns. It doesn’t matter what the Constitution has to say, it doesn’t matter what most people think about this, it doesn’t matter what the consequences of unaccountable gun transactions are. All that matters is you little boys have your little toys. You don’t care about anything else related. There is no rational discourse with a bratty child. Just “I want!” and that’s it. You guys are just little whiny, spoiled, irresponsible, bratty children.

        JMJ

        Like

      • Once again, People’s Exhibit A. Can’t back up your position with anything approaching reason and rationale? Just throw a tantrum! Fuck logic, fuck the Constitution, fuck facts, fuck sources, fuck credibility…….just throw a tantrum!

        Thanks for the laugh today……

        Like

  4. CI, I want to deal with an issue that you do not even see as existing at all. You just see your supposed opposition trying to take your guns away. It’s an intractable position. I have to warn you, though. The positions taken by the NRA & Co are going to blow back big one day. I hope you guys come around at some point to make some reasonable accommodation for the sake of civil security, because otherwise one day the reaction to some horrible event or phenomenon may be so great that the 2nd Amendment itself becomes imperiled. Despite your conviction to the contrary, I do not want to see that happen.

    JMJ

    Like

    • Why do you have to invent an argument that isn’t there? I recognize that gun violence exists, but the cure prescribed by the gun control cabal, is ultimately worse than the disease. Guns aren’t the problem. How we’re raising this generation is.

      Speaking of “reasonable accommodation”…where is that on your side? You ask to us to give….but you simply take..and take.

      I get that you have passion for your position…but can’t you see that you have proffered no cogent position whatsoever….resorting to displaying exactly what you accuse me of in your previous comment.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s