Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

Would you be alright with a law that forced people to keep their car doors locked when not in use?

Would you be okay with requiring the exact same registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance requirements for guns as we do for cars?

Which amendment gives us the right to drive on the road again?

I think it would be best if you just answered the question and gave your reasoning on it.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

DUI laws punish an act which has been committed. Leaving a gun accessible to a child is already a crime anyplace in the US I can think of and will get you charged with child endangerment or similar.

So I guess we are good, don't need more laws, just enforce the existing ones.

Still waiting your opinion on what Fed laws you want to prevent the drownings and vehicular accidents that kill way more kids than guns do.

How much government have we created, how much money have we spend, and how many soldiers have died to prevent something that has killed an average of 20 people a month over the last 13 years?

If the number of deaths matter, then we shouldn't be doing anything about terrorism. Since even in September of 2001 more people died from car accidents than from 9/11.

You forget one tiny detail. The constitution actually gives the fed gov't the responsibility for defending the nation militarily, and for raising the funds to do so. Pretty sure the guys who wrote that would think considering it a Fed responsibility to prevent accidental deaths of any sort as an asinine a notion. And for good reason.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

Would you be alright with a law that forced people to keep their car doors locked when not in use?

Would you be okay with requiring the exact same registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance requirements for guns as we do for cars?

Which amendment gives us the right to drive on the road again?

Not even an Amendment, the original document gives us the right. The Supreme Court has argued that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution confers a right to travel to the citizens of the United States.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

DUI laws punish an act which has been committed. Leaving a gun accessible to a child is already a crime anyplace in the US I can think of and will get you charged with child endangerment or similar.

So I guess we are good, don't need more laws, just enforce the existing ones.

Still waiting your opinion on what Fed laws you want to prevent the drownings and vehicular accidents that kill way more kids than guns do.

How much government have we created, how much money have we spend, and how many soldiers have died to prevent something that has killed an average of 20 people a month over the last 13 years?

If the number of deaths matter, then we shouldn't be doing anything about terrorism. Since even in September of 2001 more people died from car accidents than from 9/11.

You forget one tiny detail. The constitution actually gives the fed gov't the responsibility for defending the nation militarily, and for raising the funds to do so. Pretty sure the guys who wrote that would think considering it a Fed responsibility to prevent accidental deaths of any sort as an asinine a notion. And for good reason.

So the number of deaths doesn't matter when dealing with different subjects?

And you could easily argue that "prevent accidental deaths of any sort" as falling under the "general welfare" idea.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

Would you be alright with a law that forced people to keep their car doors locked when not in use?

Would you be okay with requiring the exact same registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance requirements for guns as we do for cars?

Which amendment gives us the right to drive on the road again?

Not even an Amendment, the original document gives us the right. The Supreme Court has argued that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution confers a right to travel to the citizens of the United States.

That's different... we do have the right to travel.

We do NOT have a right to operate vehicles on state/federal funded roads without certain credentials/requirements.

So it'll never be an apples-to-apples comparison.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

Would you be alright with a law that forced people to keep their car doors locked when not in use?

Would you be okay with requiring the exact same registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance requirements for guns as we do for cars?

Which amendment gives us the right to drive on the road again?

Not even an Amendment, the original document gives us the right. The Supreme Court has argued that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution confers a right to travel to the citizens of the United States.

That's different... we do have the right to travel.

We do NOT have a right to operate vehicles on state/federal funded roads without certain credentials/requirements.

So it'll never be an apples-to-apples comparison.

So rights can be infringed?

So if I just type the following:

We do NOT have a right to possess firearms without certain credentials/requirements.

Then everything should be okay.

Cause requiring you to lock up your individual gun parts in three separate safes in a centralized storage facility wouldn't really mess with your rights to "own the gun".

There is a constitutional right to travel, there is a constitutional right to own guns.

It is Apple-to-Apple.

 d-usa wrote:
Why should they tell you how to own and operate a car responsibly.

As already discussed, qualifying for a driver's license is hardly a compelling argument that one operates a car responsibly.

 d-usa wrote:
So rights can be infringed?

Sure, but that's not the relevant issue. The problem is you are conflating "travel" with "operating a car."

Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Why should they tell you how to own and operate a car responsibly.

As already discussed, qualifying for a driver's license is hardly a compelling argument that one operates a car responsibly.

Well, you were able to operate a car responsibly for the 10 minutes that somebody who graded you was in the car .

Which really isn't all that much different than concealed carry classes. You were able to operate a gun responsibly for long enough to get checked off .

Anywho, it was a tongue-in-check response to an argument that was made earlier that we don't need laws to make you be a responsible gun owner, because we can just punish you after you were irresponsible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So rights can be infringed?

Sure, but that's not the relevant issue. The problem is you are conflating "travel" with "operating a car."

Operating a car is a form of travel.

If people can argue that a Constitutional right to gun ownership means that you shouldn't place barriers to gun ownership, then people can argue that a constitutional right to travel means that you shouldn't place restrictions on any form o travel.

The whole "It's in the Constitution, you can't mess with it" argument falls apart when you are okay with messing with other rights in the same document.

Just as the whole "guns don't kill that many people, just look at car accidents" argument falls apart when you point out that we infringe far more rights to combat things that have resulted in an even smaller number of deaths than guns.

Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Why should they tell you how to own and operate a car responsibly.

As already discussed, qualifying for a driver's license is hardly a compelling argument that one operates a car responsibly.

 d-usa wrote:
So rights can be infringed?

Sure, but that's not the relevant issue. The problem is you are conflating "travel" with "operating a car."

In Texas you only need a license for public roads. D-usa is mandating requirements for all uses.

I'm just trying to free us from the threat of assault cars.

 d-usa wrote:
Anywho, it was a tongue-in-check response to an argument that was made earlier that we don't need laws to make you be a responsible gun owner, because we can just punish you after you were irresponsible.

The argument is that making irresponsibility a crime is morally and practically problematic.

When it comes to a driver's license, we are not making irresponsibility a crime. We are making operating a car without a license a crime.

The further question is, couldn't we also make owning and bearing arms without a license a crime? The answer is NO because there is a constitutional right to own and bear firearms and apparently no "compelling government interest" (as far as the Supreme Court is concerned) in infringing it for the reasons at issue ITT. And even if the Court said there was, it (the specific infringing policy) would still have to meet the other two prongs of the strict scrutiny test.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm just trying to free us from the threat of assault cars.

Maybe if we reduced the fuel tank size to only carry 10 bullets.

 d-usa wrote:
Operating a car is a form of travel.

Incorrect.

 d-usa wrote:
If people can argue ...

Again, you're assuming "travel" and "operating a car" are the same thing when they are not. The rest of your post runs with that false premise.

Would you be okay with requiring the exact same registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance requirements for guns as we do for cars?

Sure.

I don't need a background check to buy a car.
I don't get barred from purchasing a vehicle because of some arbitrary criteria. I can buy a semi-truck just as easily as I can a beat up scooter. I can even buy an automatic versus a manual.
I don't have a waiting period to buy a car.
I can have a car shipped to my driveway without having to go through a dealer.
I can build any car I want on my own time.
A muffler is not a felony on a car.
I can buy a car regardless of felon status.
I can buy a car regardless of restraining orders.
I can buy a car regardless of being charged with domestic violence.
I can buy a car regardless of being nuts.
I can buy and own a car without a license.
I can buy and own a car without insurance.
I do not need to store a car in a 100% enclosed and locked container when not in use, in fact I can leave the damn thing lying right in my front yard if I feel like it.
I can buy as much gasoline as I like without any stupid questions like "Is this for a motorcycle?" or age requirement.
I don't have any legal requirement to store or transport my gasoline separate from my vehicle.
If I have a license to operate a vehicle in public, it is valid in all 50 states, regardless of whether or not that state I happen to be in likes it.
I can take my vehicle onto a school campus.

Sounds awesome to me so far.

Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Anywho, it was a tongue-in-check response to an argument that was made earlier that we don't need laws to make you be a responsible gun owner, because we can just punish you after you were irresponsible.

The argument is that making irresponsibility a crime is morally and practically problematic.

When it comes to a driver's license, we are not making irresponsibility a crime. We are making operating a car without a license a crime.

The further question is, couldn't we also make owning and bearing arms without a license a crime? The answer is NO because there is a constitutional right to own and bear firearms and apparently no "compelling government interest" (as far as the Supreme Court is concerned) in infringing it for the reasons at issue ITT. And even if the Court said there was, it (the specific infringing policy) would still have to meet the other two prongs of the strict scrutiny test.

Absolutely.

Case in point... my dad has willed his weapons to me (a gak ton of guns of all sorts... he's an Alaskan )

I can own those guns... I can go to my friends house in the boonies and shoot all day long without any sort of "license". Even better... I can go on public land, provided that I acquire the approriate hunting tags, and go hunting with my new weapons without any sort of license or registration that states that I "own" those guns...

See what I mean?

 SOFDC wrote:

Would you be okay with requiring the exact same registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance requirements for guns as we do for cars?

Sure.

I don't need a background check to buy a car.
I don't get barred from purchasing a vehicle because of some arbitrary criteria. I can buy a semi-truck just as easily as I can a beat up scooter. I can even buy an automatic versus a manual.
I don't have a waiting period to buy a car.
I can have a car shipped to my driveway without having to go through a dealer.
I can build any car I want on my own time.
A muffler is not a felony on a car.
I can buy a car regardless of felon status.
I can buy a car regardless of restraining orders.
I can buy a car regardless of being charged with domestic violence.
I can buy a car regardless of being nuts.
I can buy and own a car without a license.
I can buy and own a car without insurance.
I do not need to store a car in a 100% enclosed and locked container when not in use, in fact I can leave the damn thing lying right in my front yard if I feel like it.
I can buy as much gasoline as I like without any stupid questions like "Is this for a motorcycle?" or age requirement.
I don't have any legal requirement to store or transport my gasoline separate from my vehicle.
If I have a license to operate a vehicle in public, it is valid in all 50 states, regardless of whether or not that state I happen to be in likes it.
I can take my vehicle onto a school campus.

Sounds awesome to me so far.

I like the contents of this post. Exalt!

"shall not be infringed"

My personal safety does not trump the your rights.

Your personal safety does not trump my rights.

The death of a child is terrible.

200 children vs. 317,000,000 people in the US is 0.00006 % of the population.

It is hardly like children are being gunned down en mass.

 d-usa wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

Would you be alright with a law that forced people to keep their car doors locked when not in use?

Would you be okay with requiring the exact same registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance requirements for guns as we do for cars?

Fine with it personally? I would be.

But it's as unconstitutional as requiring an ID to vote.

So which do you want?

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

But it's as unconstitutional as requiring an ID to vote.

OK. Exactly how would you have the potential voters "prove" that they are citizens?

The Constitution is pretty clear that only a "citizen" can vote.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

But it's as unconstitutional as requiring an ID to vote.

OK. Exactly how would you have the potential voters "prove" that they are citizens?

The Constitution is pretty clear that only a "citizen" can vote.

I think there's a thread that covers all that.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/563065.page

Sorry, not going to wade through seven pages of posts.

I summed up my point in two sentences.

So I heard this reported on the radio today, and while it is sensational, it is really less than what it seems.

The vast majority of these children's deaths were either accidental, self-inflicted, or inflicted by other children; at home or at a friend's residence.

Some were homicides by parents.

These sorts of things have been happening for years, heck I remember a PSA way back in the 70's or 80's about kids and guns. It was aimed (no pun intended) at adults to keep kids from handling weapons and having accidents.

Incidentally the reporter noted that accidental shootings of children by children or self-inflicted shootings accidental or otherwise was actually at an all time low.

A sensational headline is not so sensational when you realize what they are actually saying. However, saying is not selling.
The headline about the amount of kids killed by guns makes it sound as though there were several mass shootings that caused the number to be so high.

Grant you, there were mass shootings, but not like this headline insinuates.

jamesk1973 wrote:
Sorry, not going to wade through seven pages of posts.

I summed up my point in two sentences.

Yes, your post which is intended to cause more discussion on a topic that this thread doesn't cover.

But I guess if it saves you some reading

jamesk1973 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

But it's as unconstitutional as requiring an ID to vote.

OK. Exactly how would you have the potential voters "prove" that they are citizens?

The Constitution is pretty clear that only a "citizen" can vote.

I don't quite understand what point you're poorly trying to make here.

If, in your opinion, showing an ID in order to vote is unconstitutional.

Then exactly how is the government supposed to prove that the potential voter is indeed a citizen?

Take it to the voter-id thread...

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I have an uncle that used to be massive Pro-gun and pro no gun restrictions (He believed that there should not even be laws mandating proper training or securing of guns).

But then his young son took one of his unsecured hand guns and killed there family dog.


Needless to say said uncle is now firmly believes all gun owners need to be mandates to own safes to properly secure there weapons

So we need the government to step in and tell your uncle he needs common sense.... but it affects everyone? Sure.... that makes sense......

 d-usa wrote:
Take it to the voter-id thread...

I used it as a comparison for you in particular because it's a perfect example of people willing to infringe upon one constitutional right while at the same time being vehemently against infringing upon another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jamesk1973 wrote:
If, in your opinion, showing an ID in order to vote is unconstitutional.

Then exactly how is the government supposed to prove that the potential voter is indeed a citizen?

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm completely fine with requiring IDs to vote. But I do think it is potentially unconstitutional if you have to pay for an ID. But that is for another thread.

Blarcgh

It depends on if you consider something to be an infringement though.

Gun storage laws: I don't think they would be an infringement at all. The main problem with them would be enforcement. Unless you would mandate inspection of a residence before a gun purchase to make sure they have safe storage as well as surprise inspections afte the purchase to make sure they do store it safely there is no way to enforce the law. In the end it would just be another charge added on whenever a gun has a negligent discharge or a gun is reported stolen when it wasn't locked up. I don't know if and how you could make a law like that work, but it doesn't infringe your right to own a gun.

I keep a small gun-case bolted to my nightstand. It's easy and quick to unlock by pressing the right buttons in case I need to get to it. Requiring ownership of one and requiring that you store your gun in one doesn't infringe your rights, not does it render you defenseless if somebody breaks into your home.

The problem with a law like that would be enforcing it without violating a bunch of other rights in the process.

No safe. No lock. Loaded.

I am the safety.