Alternative Compromise to Gun Control

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by starving030, Mar 24, 2013.

  1. starving030

    starving030 New Member

    65
    0
    0
    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/
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2013
  2. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    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.
     

  3. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    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.
     
  4. starving030

    starving030 New Member

    65
    0
    0
    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.

    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.
     
  5. Buskowski

    Buskowski New Member

    34
    0
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2013
  6. g146541

    g146541 New Member

    2
    0
    0
    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.
     
  7. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    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.
     
  8. starving030

    starving030 New Member

    65
    0
    0
    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.
     
  9. indy36

    indy36 New Member

    1,106
    0
    0
    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.
     
  10. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    Probably actually more likely to be labeled a threat or crazy if you can actually hit what you're aiming at...
     
  11. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    I don't see it working. People don't take defensive driving courses, yet if they insure a car they are paying monetary damages by lost premium discounts. People don't get annual physicals, even though many insurances will cover them. Again, monetary damages through medical expenses and lost wages. Way too many people don't even bother getting car insurance or driver's licenses. Why should they? They think they'll never get caught.

    You're looking at this from a law abiding citizen's viewpoint, and that is officially a good thing, but I just don't see the majority playing along. Between the many that think they won't get caught, and the conspiracy theorists that think Big Brother will find a way to get info they don't need, I can actually see people avoiding this like the plague. Besides, is it really going to affect the problem segment of gun owners? I'm talking about the career criminals and mentally ill. I doubt it.
     
  12. hairbear1

    hairbear1 Active Member

    993
    25
    28
    Whatever you blokes do don't accept ANY compromises as this is the thin edge of the wedge. This is how the anti's start and how you lose your guns slowly.
    We've been fighting these anti idiots for years in Australia and just remember crims don't register guns and they don't give a rat's a$%e about laws.

    What it is is the fact that the Police just hasn't got the manpower and the judges(at least here in Australia) give the crims a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again or give them a paltry sentence.

    Fight them at every chance and don't compromise.
     
  13. rubin51

    rubin51 New Member

    9
    0
    0
    The real problems are still not being addressed. Inner-city crime and some nut-job getting a gun and........

    Inner-city crime is a an economic/drug/ENFORCEMENT issue that you and I are not going to do anything about. Keeping the nut-cases from having access to guns will solve one problem, them having a gun to use, but isn't going to stop them from killing. They WILL FIND A WAY.
     
  14. DFlynt

    DFlynt New Member

    3,038
    0
    0
    I already have a piece of paper that tells me I have a right own firearms, it's called the Constitution of the United States and it's Bill of Rights.

    I'm tired of 'compromising" with the anti-gunners, "compromise" indicates give and take but all I see are firearm owners giving and anti-gunners taking in every "compromise", time for firearms owner to say "Oh hell no" to the anti-gunners and their lap dogs in state government, congress and the white house.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2013
  15. Donn

    Donn Active Member

    1,246
    14
    38
    Any time I hear/read someone on the Left speak of "common sense" anything, my shields go up.
     
  16. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Excellent post Doc... and absolutely true.

    Accepting any regulation to appease gungrabbers is a wasted debate and offering them anything besides a firm NO will only encourage them to ask for more.

    You can't give a mouse a cracker then be surprised when he comes back asking for a glass of milk.

    Allowing the Government to pay for anything is also not just a bad idea... But a really, really, bad idea.

    Once the "taxpayer" has a financial interest, the politicians have not only a right but a duty to medal in the program... FOOG of course.

    "Records would be immediately deleted"... Sure they would... :rolleyes:

    Long story short, anything that fails to address the actual problem is worthy of nothing more than a firm NO.

    If the "so called" safety advocates would like to discuss paying for States to enter mental health info for "Involuntarily Commited" people or if they'd like to discuss the lack of enforcement of current laws as applied to "pet" constituents then OK... those are conversations we can have.

    99% of gun violence is directly related to politicians and there incompetence. I see no benefit in giving them another ounce of power until they prove to the American people that they can effectively manage the power they already have.

    Tack

     
  17. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,044
    95
    48
    100% NO!:mad:
    Do we require a mandatory class to inform a voter on how to vote, or worshipers how to worship, or organizers of those who appose the government on how to address their issues? NO we do not and would not tolerate it if we were REQUIRED to have such 'training'!:(
    A RIGHT should NEVER require governmental permission or training to exercise it!:mad:
    And the training would not be free! If we the tax payer would be footing the bill. There is no such thing as a 'free lunch', someone has to pay for it.:rolleyes:
     
  18. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Bingo...

    Tell ya what OP... get your idea proposed on the same bill that re authorizes full auto ownership... Making the purchase and production of select fire rifles no more onerous and the purchase or production of semi auto rifles... And I might begin to consider it. ;) Were talking compromise here ... Right?

    Tack
     
  19. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    7,713
    189
    63
    NO,

    In logic to discuss this doesn't sound bad! But we do not need the Government in any additional phases of our life at this point! They already are in too much and need to get out! Also the main point being, that no safety program in the world would have prevented the sicko, mentally ill subjects (A.H's) that committed the recent horrendous past murders! Once again we are trying to pacify the liberal anti second amendment people and not realizing it offering them a loophole to grasp part of our Second Amendment. A safety course for the mentally ill is as unfruitful as banning specific guns and limiting magazine capacity! How many seven round magazines can you load and shoot through a weapon in a minute!!!!! ;)
    Don't get me wrong, I think gun safety courses for everyone would be great. But not Federally mandated nor controlled in any way by a corrupt government. *As the old saying goes, lets man up and call a spade a spade!

    03
     
  20. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    Let me argue this from the other side.

    The anti-gunners won't accept it because it doesn't give them what they want. They don't want "common sense" or "reasonable restrictions". Those are weasal words, purposeful in their ambiguity.

    The goal is to limit firearms ownership, because they think guns are too dangerous for an "untrained" individual to own and thus we must get rid of them. They think we should rely on the police and that we should not worry about defending our lives and our homes because someone else should have that responsibility.

    The proposal is a non-starter from the viewpoint of the anti-gunners. It gives them nothing about what they want. They really don't care about training, they want only state agents to have guns. The rest of us should be sheep.

    Unless it means taking guns away or further restricting what gun owners are allowed to have, I suspect they will not back this. Not to mention the anti-gunners never go for "compromise". Everytime compromise means "Give us what we want or at least in part and get nothing in return".