Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Alternative Compromise to Gun Control (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/alternative-compromise-gun-control-87270/)

starving030 03-24-2013 04:31 AM

Alternative Compromise to Gun Control
 
I have been thinking about this idea and have decided to ask for everyone’s input on this. The idea is fairly simple and should make both sides somewhat happy. The idea was sparked by Amsdorf’s video(thread link below) about common sense gun control. The video got me thinking about safety and education more so than gun control. It basically involves an anonymous firearms safety course sponsored by the government but held by private companies. I’m not gonna try to explain every detail but will give a brief review.

Here’s how it would work. Class times and locations would be posted by Company X. So I show up to one of the course locations, sit down and wait for the course to start. At the course start time a government official would show up, walk in, do a head count and sign Company X’s voucher so they can get reimbursed from the government that they taught Y amount of students that day. Then they leave. No names exchanged. So the course starts and people learn stuff and so on. After completing the course, persons attending the course will get their little safety course certificate of completion in wallet form, kind of looking like a drivers license. One by one they would go up to the table, show your current ID so they know what name to put on the certificate and be on your way. Company X doesn’t record your name at all. They just type it, hit print and delete. “next in line please”

Now, what about the ones that refuse to go? Simple. If someone was caught with a firearm of any kind that does not posses this certificate then there would be some type of monetary penalty. No jail time. No felony. No loss of gun. Just money. If they don’t pay, take it from their taxes. If they get no taxes there is always community service.

The points of this idea that I think makes both sides somewhat happy are simple.

Anti-gunners-
Feel they have regulated guns
Feel that everyone with a gun is competent.
Feel powerful because they can fine you.
Fix the “gunshow loophole”

Pro-gunners
Keep your guns, NO MATTER WHAT.
Complete Anonymity.
No infringement at all to buy/sell/own/
Encourages safe firearms practices.


Ok guys. A little long winded I know. I tried to summarize the best I could. What are your thoughts? Complete manure? Scrap it? Change it? Close but not quite? Perfect?

Amsdorf’s thread
http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/why-i-support-common-sense-gun-control-87191/

trip286 03-24-2013 04:38 AM

I don't think it would bother me except one thing: the class being mandatory, and possession of the cert being mandatory, vs a monetary penalty IS an infringement. However, the class being free and available to everyone kinda negates that.

opaww 03-24-2013 04:41 AM

I would not support it at all because I don't have to have a permission slip from any government or anyone else for that matter to have, buy, sell, use any gun what so ever.

I am not here to appease the anti-gunner/anti-rights asses.

starving030 03-24-2013 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trip286 (Post 1188243)
I don't think it would bother me except one thing: the class being mandatory, and possession of the cert being mandatory, vs a monetary penalty IS an infringement. However, the class being free and available to everyone kinda negates that.

That's why I mentioned government sponsored. If all I have to pay is a few hours out of my whole entire life it is not to bad really. Plus it ensures that there aren't any dangerous situations out there with all these new gun buyers not knowing what they are doing. I see it as a win win for the safety aspect alone, personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by opaww (Post 1188247)
I would not support it at all because I don't have to have a permission slip from any government or anyone else for that matter to have, buy, sell, use any gun what so ever.

I am not here to appease the anti-gunner/anti-rights asses.

I understand your view. And yes, they are being "asses" about it. I know it's kinda scummy but technically it's not saying you CAN'T own a gun. Just saying they want you to take a safety course. The same as a drivers license test. You can have a car but they they want to be sure you are safe with it. It's sensible, to me at least.

Thanks for the quick reply's/input guys.

Buskowski 03-24-2013 06:17 AM

A drivers license is a privilege. Owning and bearing a gun is a right. I don't need to take a course to exercise my right to free speech, so why should I have to for my firearms? I understand where your coming from, but there can be no compromise because I'm not going to compromise my right just to satisfy an anti constitutional, liberal agenda.

I firmly believe if you give this current administration just an inch, just a little inch, they will take mile after mile. It won't stop there. They have an insatiable hunger for power and control.

g146541 03-24-2013 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starving030 (Post 1188234)
I have been thinking about this idea and have decided to ask for everyone’s input on this.

My input is, it is a bad idea.
How about since there are many countries on the face of this earth that are ok with being oppressed, we try a new experiment.
In this experiment, we will give everyone the right to defend their XXXX!
We will call this place the United States!
Anyone who must be nannied or lorded over is free to go to an oppressive country.
However, we will keep our guns, no compromises.
Why compromise on a deal when we hold all of the cards??
I think the insecure should just find a new land or shut up.

trip286 03-24-2013 06:43 AM

Well, to be fair, driving in itself is a right, unless it's done commercially. Still, we accept the restriction. Also, the right to free speech does not allow one to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater, or make bomb threats.

There are many, MANY, different angles, aspects, and situations to consider.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I do completely agree with your sentiment, as I noted in my first post here. But really, we will never again have unrestricted firearms possession, so it's not unfair to debate the point.

starving030 03-24-2013 07:01 AM

Agreed. I don't want to give away anything either. I would like to get more back to tell you the truth. I was trying to think outside the box is all. Honestly, I think most of the "problem" boils down to lack of consequences for crime(justice system) and in some cases, psychological impairment.

Thanks for all the responses.

indy36 03-24-2013 07:15 AM

It's not, and has never been, about your ability to hit what you are shooting at. You could hit nothing but dead center, all day every day, and still be labeled a threat or a crazy. Honestly, they secretly probably don't want you trained to be a better shot either. That doesn't make them feel better. It's about control. They don't want you to own guns, period.

trip286 03-24-2013 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indy36 (Post 1188304)
It's not, and has never been, about your ability to hit what you are shooting at. You could hit nothing but dead center, all day every day, and still be labeled a threat or a crazy. Honestly, they secretly probably don't want you trained to be a better shot either. That doesn't make them feel better. It's about control. They don't want you to own guns, period.

Probably actually more likely to be labeled a threat or crazy if you can actually hit what you're aiming at...


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:29 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.