Jump to content

Vegas shooting


Cossacks

Recommended Posts

After having time to reflect and really give thought to this tragedy, gun control regulation and freedom of movement and protections from illegal search... I tried to set my emotions aside and be as objective as possible in my thought processes...

I think after all of this has kind of settled in and my knee jerk emotions were beaten back that I still have a definite problem with the tube stock weapons that were designed to be "tricked" out with many different easy modifications, but as people often do put out, it took some person to put these mods and the actual weapon to use against innocent people.

If the law banning the general public from possessing fully automatic weapons is considered acceptable and constitutional, then the spirit behind that law has to be considered at this point as modifications, training and usage of "legal" firearms has crossed the line into the realm of the spirit of that ban. How to apply this in some common sense manner will be difficult for sure, but to say that these weapons out there designed to violate the spirit of the fully automatic ban should not be banned or a lot more strictly regulated doesn't make sense if you agree with the fully auto ban in the least.

Here is my most significant thought, where I think the most effective action can be taken. I think that every gun owner should maintain a license to own, and in order to maintain that license, have an annual "wellness" check. This could be carried out much like commercial truck drivers licenses and d.o.t. physicals that are required to maintain the license and right to drive the trucks on the highway. 

If you are licensed, every firearm you purchase is connected with the license. The companies out there creating scopes and mods for the weapons should also be required to report purchases so that "we" can flag certain license holders if it becomes apparent they may be attempting to violate the spirit of the laws. 

 

We require our truck drivers to prove their physical and mental wellness in order to maintain their license and to protect the public from them in case they should become infirmed. The public basically demands this in order to feel safe, but we allow any non-felon to stroll into a store or gun show and buy a semi-auto firearm that can easily be just as, or more devastating than a tractor trailer rig full of gasoline, with no examination at all. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

After having time to reflect and really give thought to this tragedy, gun control regulation and freedom of movement and protections from illegal search... I tried to set my emotions aside and be as objective as possible in my thought processes...

I think after all of this has kind of settled in and my knee jerk emotions were beaten back that I still have a definite problem with the tube stock weapons that were designed to be "tricked" out with many different easy modifications, but as people often do put out, it took some person to put these mods and the actual weapon to use against innocent people.

If the law banning the general public from possessing fully automatic weapons is considered acceptable and constitutional, then the spirit behind that law has to be considered at this point as modifications, training and usage of "legal" firearms has crossed the line into the realm of the spirit of that ban. How to apply this in some common sense manner will be difficult for sure, but to say that these weapons out there designed to violate the spirit of the fully automatic ban should not be banned or a lot more strictly regulated doesn't make sense if you agree with the fully auto ban in the least.

Here is my most significant thought, where I think the most effective action can be taken. I think that every gun owner should maintain a license to own, and in order to maintain that license, have an annual "wellness" check. This could be carried out much like commercial truck drivers licenses and d.o.t. physicals that are required to maintain the license and right to drive the trucks on the highway. 

If you are licensed, every firearm you purchase is connected with the license. The companies out there creating scopes and mods for the weapons should also be required to report purchases so that "we" can flag certain license holders if it becomes apparent they may be attempting to violate the spirit of the laws. 

 

We require our truck drivers to prove their physical and mental wellness in order to maintain their license and to protect the public from them in case they should become infirmed. The public basically demands this in order to feel safe, but we allow any non-felon to stroll into a store or gun show and buy a semi-auto firearm that can easily be just as, or more devastating than a tractor trailer rig full of gasoline, with no examination at all. 

 

 

 

 

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that ignorant depressed unstable assholes have the right to bear arms.

It's clear as fudge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

After having time to reflect and really give thought to this tragedy, gun control regulation and freedom of movement and protections from illegal search... I tried to set my emotions aside and be as objective as possible in my thought processes...

I think after all of this has kind of settled in and my knee jerk emotions were beaten back that I still have a definite problem with the tube stock weapons that were designed to be "tricked" out with many different easy modifications, but as people often do put out, it took some person to put these mods and the actual weapon to use against innocent people.

If the law banning the general public from possessing fully automatic weapons is considered acceptable and constitutional, then the spirit behind that law has to be considered at this point as modifications, training and usage of "legal" firearms has crossed the line into the realm of the spirit of that ban. How to apply this in some common sense manner will be difficult for sure, but to say that these weapons out there designed to violate the spirit of the fully automatic ban should not be banned or a lot more strictly regulated doesn't make sense if you agree with the fully auto ban in the least.

Here is my most significant thought, where I think the most effective action can be taken. I think that every gun owner should maintain a license to own, and in order to maintain that license, have an annual "wellness" check. This could be carried out much like commercial truck drivers licenses and d.o.t. physicals that are required to maintain the license and right to drive the trucks on the highway. 

If you are licensed, every firearm you purchase is connected with the license. The companies out there creating scopes and mods for the weapons should also be required to report purchases so that "we" can flag certain license holders if it becomes apparent they may be attempting to violate the spirit of the laws. 

 

We require our truck drivers to prove their physical and mental wellness in order to maintain their license and to protect the public from them in case they should become infirmed. The public basically demands this in order to feel safe, but we allow any non-felon to stroll into a store or gun show and buy a semi-auto firearm that can easily be just as, or more devastating than a tractor trailer rig full of gasoline, with no examination at all. 

 

 

 

 

Who is paying for this license? How much does it cost. Is there a record of all licenses? Is it state level or gov level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in order to protect tje 2nd amendment rights, this regulation would have to be on the federal level, because as Concha states, some areas may make it impossible to obtain the license.

Maybe a federal guideline and state enforcement. Idk. Neither seems favorable, but there would need be some across the board line to follow specifically.

I think truck drivers pay for their own license and d.o.t. physicals, so would expect that in the absence of some federal freebie gun owners would probably have to share in the expense. A d.o.t. physical costs about 40 bucks per year and the license maybe around the same cost.

This money should then be applied to maintaining the data base and possible training programs or whatever.

Idk. Still in the imagining zone for me. Any way, if people are the problem as we all agree then we have to find a way to work around them moreso than the actual weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I think in order to protect tje 2nd amendment rights, this regulation would have to be on the federal level, because as Concha states, some areas may make it impossible to obtain the license.

Maybe a federal guideline and state enforcement. Idk. Neither seems favorable, but there would need be some across the board line to follow specifically.

I think truck drivers pay for their own license and d.o.t. physicals, so would expect that in the absence of some federal freebie gun owners would probably have to share in the expense. A d.o.t. physical costs about 40 bucks per year and the license maybe around the same cost.

This money should then be applied to maintaining the data base and possible training programs or whatever.

Idk. Still in the imagining zone for me. Any way, if people are the problem as we all agree then we have to find a way to work around them moreso than the actual weapons.

Great post Hawg.  What are your thoughts on size of magazines or clips or whatever?  What about ammo and armour piercing bullets?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I think in order to protect tje 2nd amendment rights, this regulation would have to be on the federal level, because as Concha states, some areas may make it impossible to obtain the license.

Maybe a federal guideline and state enforcement. Idk. Neither seems favorable, but there would need be some across the board line to follow specifically.

I think truck drivers pay for their own license and d.o.t. physicals, so would expect that in the absence of some federal freebie gun owners would probably have to share in the expense. A d.o.t. physical costs about 40 bucks per year and the license maybe around the same cost.

This money should then be applied to maintaining the data base and possible training programs or whatever.

Idk. Still in the imagining zone for me. Any way, if people are the problem as we all agree then we have to find a way to work around them moreso than the actual weapons.

Another question.  Why would it be harder to obtain a liscence in liberal areas like Concha suggested?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I think in order to protect tje 2nd amendment rights, this regulation would have to be on the federal level, because as Concha states, some areas may make it impossible to obtain the license.

Maybe a federal guideline and state enforcement. Idk. Neither seems favorable, but there would need be some across the board line to follow specifically.

I think truck drivers pay for their own license and d.o.t. physicals, so would expect that in the absence of some federal freebie gun owners would probably have to share in the expense. A d.o.t. physical costs about 40 bucks per year and the license maybe around the same cost.

This money should then be applied to maintaining the data base and possible training programs or whatever.

Idk. Still in the imagining zone for me. Any way, if people are the problem as we all agree then we have to find a way to work around them moreso than the actual weapons.

So now there would be a data base of all law abiding citizens who own weapons? What about criminals? They obviously don’t follow laws now right? 

Who sets the price of this license? The state? CA, NY and other liberal states would set the price that is so far out of reach that only the rich could afford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

Another question.  Why would it be harder to obtain a liscence in liberal areas like Concha suggested?  

If it were left up to the states to frame what a citizen need do in order to obtain a license, more liberal areas would likely go so strict as to make it near impossible to get the license.  I think he is right on that. 

For there to be license issuance as I suggest, that license would have to be issued from the federal level. Maybe through an office like the social security office or whatever other federal government entity holding a regional  office in virtually every area of the country. That bypasses any state involvement in the issuance. 

For instance, as in the truck driver example, the truck driver has to go to certain clinics that offer D.O.T. physicals. The doctors in these are trained to look for specific things like grip strength, and to ask certain questions, in order to certify a driver as capable handle a big rig. All that would need to happen is add an extra element of psychiatric review to determine the overall wellness and stability of a person. 

If you allowed the states to designate the requirement required to pass the physical, then they could make it near impossible, which would bypass the second amendment and would technically violate the spirit of the regulation I'm suggesting that could work. 

Delicate stuff we are talking about here. Stuff that would definitely require a lot of ink and be very specific coming from the federally introduced legislation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

So now there would be a data base of all law abiding citizens who own weapons? What about criminals? They obviously don’t follow laws now right? 

Who sets the price of this license? The state? CA, NY and other liberal states would set the price that is so far out of reach that only the rich could afford

Yes there would be a data base. How else do you figure out which nut is about to snap? 

We already agree people kill people. The gun is lifeless laying there until nut picks it up. 

Folks hate regulating guns, so you have to turn the page to where the problem is. The person holding the gun.

We obviously can't control criminals or there would be none at all. So obviously this is just a layer of insulation added to protect me from you and you from me and both of us from Waylon Jennings ghost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also this database would be no different than say the drivers license database. Get checked in a roadblock and you are driving without a license you go to jail and the car is towed.

Get caught with a gun, and can't produce the license, go to jail and the gun is towed. 

Something along those lines I suspect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HawgGoneIt said:

Yes there would be a data base. How else do you figure out which nut is about to snap? 

We already agree people kill people. The gun is lifeless laying there until nut picks it up. 

Folks hate regulating guns, so you have to turn the page to where the problem is. The person holding the gun.

We obviously can't control criminals or there would be none at all. So obviously this is just a layer of insulation added to protect me from you and you from me and both of us from Waylon Jennings ghost.

But how are we supposed to protect ourselves from criminals who don’t give a frick abt our laws?

a data base of every law abiding citizen who owns a gun is a hard sell. I wouldn’t want to be on it. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to give us the right to protect ourselves from tyranny. The first thing every dictatorship has done is take the weapons from their citizens. You want to provide a list making this although highly unlikely but possible act to occur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Also this database would be no different than say the drivers license database. Get checked in a roadblock and you are driving without a license you go to jail and the car is towed.

Get caught with a gun, and can't produce the license, go to jail and the gun is towed. 

Something along those lines I suspect. 

I would be more apt to agree having to obtain a license if you bought say 10 guns. But one gun. Your not putting my name anywhere and bump your license

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we already collectively agree to give our info over in order to drive. In order to fly on a plane I have to be invaded by alien technology that can see under my clothes, and I have to get wanded to go to a baseball game etc. 

I'd say purchasing a license is a very small intrusion considering all the freedoms EVERY PERSON has already given up in lieu of some type of gun regulation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Well, we already collectively agree to give our info over in order to drive. In order to fly on a plane I have to be invaded by alien technology that can see under my clothes, and I have to get wanded to go to a baseball game etc. 

I'd say purchasing a license is a very small intrusion considering all the freedoms EVERY PERSON has already given up in lieu of some type of gun regulation. 

And that is the point they take very little at a time until before you know it everything is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

And that is the point they take very little at a time until before you know it everything is gone.

Yep. But, when you say "they", you really mean "we". They are us and we are them. 

It's not right that every person wanting to enjoy a concert or ball game has to give up some of their freedoms so that one law abiding nutso gun owner can flip and shoot them up causing them to lose more of their freedoms. 

At some point, the needs of the many have to outweigh the needs of the few. 

Either that or we have to all accept that stepping outside could very well mean stepping into the line of fire and we must all be willing to do that as a patriot whether we own a gun or not. 

I knowingly step in front of a bullet so Jimbo can keep his AR15. You step in front of one so Concha can keep his. 

Either that or continue giving up freedom of movement and your rights to illegal search so that they can keep their fire arms. 

Something has got to give at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Yep. But, when you say "they", you really mean "we". They are us and we are them. 

It's not right that every person wanting to enjoy a concert or ball game has to give up some of their freedoms so that one law abiding nutso gun owner can flip and shoot them up causing them to lose more of their freedoms. 

At some point, the needs of the many have to outweigh the needs of the few. 

Either that or we have to all accept that stepping outside could very well mean stepping into the line of fire and we must all be willing to do that as a patriot whether we own a gun or not. 

I knowingly step in front of a bullet so Jimbo can keep his AR15. You step in front of one so Concha can keep his. 

Either that or continue giving up freedom of movement and your rights to illegal search so that they can keep their fire arms. 

Something has got to give at some point.

Are you sure you’re not George Orwell

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

If it were left up to the states to frame what a citizen need do in order to obtain a license, more liberal areas would likely go so strict as to make it near impossible to get the license.  I think he is right on that. 

For there to be license issuance as I suggest, that license would have to be issued from the federal level. Maybe through an office like the social security office or whatever other federal government entity holding a regional  office in virtually every area of the country. That bypasses any state involvement in the issuance. 

For instance, as in the truck driver example, the truck driver has to go to certain clinics that offer D.O.T. physicals. The doctors in these are trained to look for specific things like grip strength, and to ask certain questions, in order to certify a driver as capable handle a big rig. All that would need to happen is add an extra element of psychiatric review to determine the overall wellness and stability of a person. 

If you allowed the states to designate the requirement required to pass the physical, then they could make it near impossible, which would bypass the second amendment and would technically violate the spirit of the regulation I'm suggesting that could work. 

Delicate stuff we are talking about here. Stuff that would definitely require a lot of ink and be very specific coming from the federally introduced legislation. 

 

I was going off the assumption that it would be run at the federal level and not left up to each state.  So that takes care of the hard to get a license problem.  

A very reasonable step that any reasonable person (who is not paranoid) should agree with.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

If it were left up to the states to frame what a citizen need do in order to obtain a license, more liberal areas would likely go so strict as to make it near impossible to get the license.  I think he is right on that. 

 

IRS targeting of conservatives ring a bell?

Government workers/bureaucracies tending to be liberal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...