If a CCW applicant has to take classes and pass tests...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...shouldn't there be a requirement for those writing firearm legislation to prove they understand the objects being regulated?

8 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, having confidence in legislators is important
	8 (100%)
	No, outlawing "shoulder things that go up" is important
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[NYC_SKP]

1. I vote yes, and add that LEOs should have to pass constitutional literacy tests.

They should know and be required not to exceed the boundaries regarding searches, detainment, etc., and if they can't pass with a 90% or higher be given a desk.

[SwankyXomb]

2. The desk

would probably score higher than most cops.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Moreover, they are permitted by law to be liars to citizens.

When interacting with the public, police are permitted to lie about what is a legal search, permitted to make promises AND threats that can't be backed up, and much more.

These problems are deeply seated in the institutions of law enforcement and need to be weeded out through legislation.

Even if we had the will, it would take a generation, but we don't have the will so they'll likely get worse.

[ZombieHorde]

4. What do you mean by "understand?"

What sort of information do you have in mind?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Well, based on further comments about

'fear driven legislation', it sounds like it translates to 'be pro-NRA'.

If you really wanted people to 'understand' about guns, you'd fund public health studies on gun violence at the CDC, so those same pieces of legislation could be statistically based, rather than blocking such studies.

[ZombieHorde]

29. I definately support studies

and policies based on well-executed studies.

[gejohnston]

30. no you continue to allow

DoJ to fund the studies, at least their stuff is published in peer reviewed sociology journals. Gun prohibitionists don't like them, but I don't give a shit.
The CDC ones? The one that inspired the ban, never was for years. When it was, it was debunked. In general, the CDC ones were derided by criminologists as being about as scientific as NRA propaganda.
check out the LoC study
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/comparative.php

If you insist on the CDC, the criteria should be:
be submitted for publication in peer reviewed criminology or sociology publication
If rejected, reason why be made public
critiques etc also be made public free of charge
study and all of the data be made public
all of this for free.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. Terminology and basic functionality

A law is an articulated standard which, in many cases, could send folks prison. I don't think demanding a legislator have an understanding of the impact of the law being considered.

I have come across instances of existing laws that remain unenforced due to a lack of funding, jurisdictional issues and/or confusion between that laws, other laws and court decisions/precedents.

Knowing the basics is fine. Knowing the other laws is important.

[ZombieHorde]

66. Thanks for the answer. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. You're welcome

[Starboard Tack]

5. Understand what exactly? How each gun works?

Or what potential damage guns can do when used to shoot people?

[gejohnston]

7. the former

do we let ignorant people at the FAA make regulations? EPA? It should apply to everything. Appeals to emotion and ignorance have no place in public policy ever.

[Starboard Tack]

8. And do you think the legislators all know how to fly planes and how they work?

I seriously doubt it. The question was about those writing legislation.
Obviously, any legislation should be written with the assistance of experts in the field.
CCW legislation is about use of guns, about where, what and how they are permitted to be used. Obviously, there should be restrictions, in terms of type of weapon, capacity and lethality of weapons, as well as where and when they may be carried and for what purposes.
Experts should be consulted, I agree, and legislation should never be written in response to emotional appeals alone, nor out of ignorance. Unfortunately, much legislation is written that way, including most of the anti-drug legislation, the homeland security legislation (Patriot Act), xenophobic immigration legislation, the relaxing of gun laws and other fear driven legislation.

[gejohnston]

9. the relaxing of gun laws and other fear driven legislation.

Actually the ones being relaxed were written out of fear, of workers and people of color. That is why Vermont didn't pass any gun laws (including restrictive concealed carry). They didn't have any major labor or racial issues 100 years ago. Most of them were passed in the 1920s, including Michigan's and North Carolina's UBC (1925 and 1919 respectively). The same people also lobbied for gun registration in Mississippi in 1954 (passed the state house, but didn't make it through the Senate). You think the Rainbow Coalition of Peace and Social Justice pushed for those? No. It was a group that liked to dress in funny outfits while attending their bonfires.
Wyoming passed their restrictive CCW law in the 1880s because of the "yellow peril" after a race/labor riot in my home town. It was actually more stringent than Germany today or certainly Canada until 1967. The town was about 50 percent Chinese immigrant.
UK passed their first ones because of the labor movement and the "red scare".

To answer your question, they should be at least half way competent, like explain why the location of the magazine well matters on a pistol and know what a barrel shroud is.

[clffrdjk]

10. The legislators don't know jack

And often fuck things up because of it. But I can assure you that the people at the FAA who actually write and enforce the Regs are very knowledgeable and have years of experience in aviation.

[Starboard Tack]

12. Can't disagree with that.

So, what is the solution? Do we want technocrats running the show? I think not.
It's all about balance, if we want anything close to reasonable and fair legislation.

Firearm legislation is one of the tough ones, because it is the struggle between individual rights and public safety, which are often at odds with each other.

[gejohnston]

14. struggle between individual rights and public safety

That is why I agree with the founders who got their ideas from Enlightenment thinkers and writers like John Locke.
There are only individual rights. There are no group rights, such as public safety. When Canada was working on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, law enforcement opposed the prohibition on warrant-less searches because it was "a threat to public safety".

[Starboard Tack]

16. So, in your view, the general public has no rights?

On a certain level, I can agree with that. But, as individuals, we are part of the general public, and as such we have rights. Call them societal rights, if you like. They come with the social contract inherent in our decision to live together in communities. Public safety is a group right, and it depends on a certain concession of individual rights in favor of the public good.
If you want a libertarian society, where individual rights trump group rights, then I wish you luck. For, in essence, that would be anarchy, where the extreme right meets the extreme left.

For a few thousand years now, humans have decided to try and live together in groups. Every time a group is formed, it creates rules that are integral and necessary for the group's survival. Those rules, inevitably involve the sacrifice of hithertofore individual rights. We call that civilization. Before we had these groups, each individual walked around with a club, ready to clobber any other being he encountered. You live in a society that is gradually returning to that state. I wish you well.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. The general public has rights, but only up to a point

What happens when a majority starts dictating individual religious practices?

Or just who a person may marry/have sex with, what they may do with their reproductive organs, or where they can live?

All these things have been done (and are being done now in various places) and all for
"the public good".

There's a reason the phrase "the tyranny of the majority" has been part of political
discourse for two centuries now...

[Starboard Tack]

36. Then that would be a majority and not the public as a whole.

We all have rights to certain things, like public services. Hopefully, you'll be getting more of these rights as your society matures. Looks like steps are being made toward getting basic healthcare, which is only about 3 generations behind most industrialized nations. Maybe you'll get to the point where you don't have to be concerned about idiots carrying guns around.

The only thing worse than the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of the minority. Be careful what you wish for.

[gejohnston]

24. I don't think you understand the concept that well.

You are confusing what is the proper government functions such as fire, law enforcement, public health, healthcare, environmental regulations etc. Public safely is a vague catch all to to justify social control Racist drug laws were enacted for "public safety" the Klan and anti union thugs pushed through gun control for "public safety". Of course, not all group rights is a good thing. In South Africa, Apartheid was a "group right." One that neither of us agree with.

In Europe, gun laws had nothing to do with public safety, since murder rates were about the same as they are now, lower if you count UK. It was the 1 percent fearing those unwashed masses.

Actually no, anarchy can't exist because nature abhors a vacuum. Somalia went from totalitarian dictatorship to what amounts to feudalism, but not anarchy. The nearest thing to it we ever had were some libertarian socialist societies with hunter/gatherer economies. Like any other ideology, anarchy/libertariansim is faith based. I do like the non aggression principle.

Before we had these groups, each individual walked around with a club, ready to clobber any other being he encountered. You live in a society that is gradually returning to that state. I wish you well.

That never existed. Archaeology came a long way since you attended William Cunnington's lectures. Perhaps you should brush up. Just like the first Red Dawn was an example of how not to invade a country (and how not to carry out a guerrilla campaign), Mad Max sucked as an anthropology lesson, that is before we discuss Mel Gibson's acting. Even in Mad Max, societies naturally formed.
Even as modern disasters have shown (outside of the few predators that take advantage of the situation) people form volunteer groups for mutual aid and carry out functions (sometimes with an kind of appointed informal leader) to carry out tasks and mutual aid.

[Starboard Tack]

45. How many of those "proper government functions" are working for you GE?

I'd say the Fire Department, because from my observation, you guys are falling short on all the rest by a long way.
You have a very jaded view of what "public safety" is. And that is not surprising when you live in a country where the police are a paramilitary organization, armed to the teeth, shooting citizens with impunity.

Public safety and public health is about first responders, which is mainly taken care of by the FD in the US, and they do an incredible job. PD's and SD's also do a great job in many situations like S&R, as does the USCG.
Your public health system is in its infancy, thanks to Obama. Otherwise it wouldn't exist beyond the ER.
Community policing is a joke in terms of public health and safety. Public education, which is integral to both health and safety, is little better.
I'm not familiar with your other references. Slightly familiar with Mad Max.

I never said that Europe's gun laws had to do with public safety. The mentality is different in Europe when it comes to guns. They are primarily for hunting. Otherwise they are tools of war and fortunately we are not currently at war. They are rarely, if ever, carried for so-called civilian self defense.

[gejohnston]

49. some clarifications

I'd say the Fire Department, because from my observation, you guys are falling short on all the rest by a long way.
You have a very jaded view of what "public safety" is. And that is not surprising when you live in a country where the police are a paramilitary organization, armed to the teeth, shooting citizens with impunity.

Actually, our police are becoming more Europeanized, since they had the armored vehicles, water cannons, machine guns to riots, etc. way before ours did. As for "shooting citizens with impunity", there are rare cases but more often than not, it turns out to be irresponsible media and less than ethical "journalists" and bloggers.

Public safety and public health is about first responders, which is mainly taken care of by the FD in the US, and they do an incredible job. PD's and SD's also do a great job in many situations like S&R, as does the USCG.
Your public health system is in its infancy, thanks to Obama.

Actually, our public health system has always been on the county level, and has done quite well before Obama and I were born. I think it is underutilized and should be expanded.

Community policing is a joke in terms of public health and safety. Public education, which is integral to both health and safety, is little better.

None of them are actually related. Which has to do with what? For public education, I think we need to get away from the Dewey model of turning out obedient factory workers. The biggest problem with community policing in the US is not the police or their equipment, it is the policy makers at city hall. See Chicago.

I never said that Europe's gun laws had to do with public safety. The mentality is different in Europe when it comes to guns. They are primarily for hunting. Otherwise they are tools of war and fortunately we are not currently at war. They are rarely, if ever, carried for so-called civilian self defense.

That is because Europe has never really embraced the basic tenent that each individual has natural rights by our very existence, instead of simply having privileges granted by the Crown, god's representatives. On some level, that mentality still exists. Carrying for self defense in Europe was probably quite common in the early 20th century, given the number of small pistols made and sold in Europe. FN started making the .25 acp "Baby Browning" in 1931, and didn't export to the US for another 20 years. That is before you get to the ones made by Walther, Beretta, Mauser, etc. I actually think it was more common than the US is today. I also think it is more common in Europe than you think today, there isn't any Bloomberg's pushing propaganda.

.

[gejohnston]

51. Post script

Last edited Wed Aug 27, 2014, 07:41 PM - Edit history (1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cunnington
Never saw the movie Red Dawn? Really? Come on, you can confess your guy movie tastes here. I even admit to sitting through The Hours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hours_(film)

[Starboard Tack]

84. Red Dawn? Nope Sorry.

Just looked it up on IMDB. Looks pretty hokey. Not my kind of movie. The "Hours" otoh was an excellent movie. I do love a lot of guy flicks too. Mostly, I read pulp fiction.

[gejohnston]

86. did you look up the 1984 version

or the remake?
The hokeyness wasn't the invader vs civilian turned partisan. That happens. The Democratic congressman I most admire kind of lived it. The hokeyness was in how successful the invasion was given the logistical nightmare an operation like that would be, and the Soviets had a lot of crap. Yeah, they used to scare us in boot camp (both of them Army and Air Force) but after I got to reading Janes etc. I realized that their tanks and fighters sucked. Their supply system sucked. Their strategic airlift sucked (they would not be able to land big assed cargo planes near that town. Without that, no tanks and gunships. Big toys need big supply lines). This covers it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18812_5-reasons-red-dawn-secretly-subversive-anti-war-film.html
I wished I could have found actual resistance fighters from (from other places and times obviously) who saw the movie to get their take.

I always thought Virginia Wolf was over rated. The movie put my ass to sleep almost as fast as a Sarah Palin speech.
I'm more of an Edward Abbey and Natsume Sōseki man myself (he was on the 1K Yen bill in the 1980s. I understand he has been replaced by a microbiologist.) Although I mostly read nonfiction.

[clffrdjk]

17. The interesting thing with the gun debate

Is the disparity of knowledge. It seems that except for the very rare exception the people with knowledge or experience are on the pro-gun side. The question is why are the knowledgeable ones on the antigun side kept so far away from the actual bill writing process.

[Starboard Tack]

20. Maybe it's like the Manhattan Project and the decision to bomb Hiroshima

I doubt too many legislators had the insight or knowledge that Oppie and his team had.

[Straw Man]

11. Yes.

Understand what exactly? How each gun works?

Or what potential damage guns can do when used to shoot people?

If they can't understand the functions of the weapons in question, then they can't understand what they are regulating and why. A case in point is the NY SAFE Act, which banned "muzzle breaks," something that does not exist, when what they meant to ban was "muzzle brakes." (Some tried to claim it as a spelling error, which is even more disturbing.) Essentially, what they were trying to ban is "a scary-looking thing that goes on the end of a gun barrel," with no cognizance at all of the function of said device, which is designed to reduce the effects of recoil and thereby make the gun more manageable to shoot. This has absolutely nothing to do with "potential damage guns can do when used to shoot people," as any with a modicum of technological knowledge would understand.

New Jersey's ban on hollowpoint bullets is another case in point. Hollowpoint bullets cause more tissue damage than full metal jacket projectiles do. Therefore they are more dangerous and should be banned, right? Except that full metal jacket bullets are far more likely to pass through their initial targets and strike someone or something behind that target, which is precisely why police don't use them. The are also more likely to penetrate deeply enough to strike vital organs (as opposed to causing tissue damage and blood loss) and are therefore more likely to cause an injury that will eventually prove fatal but will not necessarily stop an assault in a timely matter. The result is a lose-lose situation: dead victim and a dead assailant.

Legislators spend far too much time politicking and far too little time educating themselves on the issues at hand. Most of the signatories of the NY SAFE Act had not read it. That is inexcusable.

[Starboard Tack]

13. I agree

If you're gonna be part of the legislation of something, educate yourself.

[Eleanors38]

34. You ban it, you define it. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. Terminology and basic functionality

see post #35.

[Starboard Tack]

46. OK. I'm good with that. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. You're a reasonable dude...

...some folks aren't, I'm sorry to say.

[sarisataka]

6. I do not expect my legislator to be an expert

on each and every topic. They can write medical related laws with being an M.D.

They should, however, fact check with an expert before proclaiming themselves knowledgeable. The legislation will be run past an M.D. (most of the time) to see if it will do what it is supposed to; the same should be done with gun laws.

[flamin lib]

15. The "experts" all come from the gun lobby. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Antigun types tend to not know what they're talking about and/or embrace ignorance

It's a shame to see a bunch of allegedly liberal/progressive types suddenly start acting
like a bunch of fundie god-botherers, but it happens regularly:


https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22shoulder+thing+that+goes+up&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com#q=%22shoulder+thing+that+goes+up%22+site:democraticunderground.com

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=141590


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#471995

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2589190

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/117259200

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x319549

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x366408

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4436536

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x311988

I could cite more, but you get the picture...

[flamin lib]

21. I am not anti gun.

If there were an honest organization like the NRA was before a multi millionaire began running it for the benefit of the death merchants who pay him that would be a ligitamate advisory source. But there isn't a source like that, at least not one that can compete with the death for profit lobby.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Trouble is, the NRA does actually provide competent instruction...

...while the "gun safety" advocacy groups do not. To do so would piss off the
prohibitionists in their ranks. As the links I provided illustrate, there's a substantial
portion of folks that prefer the "abstinence-only" approach.

You may despise the NRA's politics (I certainly do) and still acknowledge
that they know what they're doing as far as education.

Personally, I'd go for an instructor associated with the Liberal Gun Club:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a voice for gun-owning liberals and moderates in the national conversation on gun rights, gun legislation, firearms safety, and shooting sports. We serve as a national forum for all people, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, to discuss firearms ownership, firearms use, and the enjoyment of firearms-related activities free from the destructive elements of political extremism that dominate this subject on the national scale. We also actively develop and foster a variety of programs for the purpose of firearms training and firearms safety education, for both gun owners and non-gun owners.

[flamin lib]

25. See? There ya go being confrontational. Lacing your reply with commentary insulting to

everyone not gung ho guns everywhere.

For every prohibitionist there are a dozen sovereign citizens, oath keepers or open carry nut balls. You know that don't you?

The NRA and gun lobby, whose only interest is to make a profit from gun sales regardless of the carnage that irresponsible sales cause are the only voices heard by legislators. There is no credible voice for safety from the pro gun side but that's changing.

There are now a number of credible anti violence organizations being heard:

Sandy Hook Promise
Moms Demand Action
Everytown
Americans for Responsible Solutions

These voices are just beginning to be heard and except for Blomberg they are all genuinely grass roots, funded by people like me. None of these groups have a ban on guns in their agenda. They are interested in reducing gun violence by simple, sensible changes in policy that will help reduce the 15,000 or so homicides in the US every year.

Why not add your voice?

[Duckhunter935]

28. At least two of those

Are Bloomberg front groups funded by Bloomberg

[flamin lib]

37. So? list all the "grass roots" groups in the gun lobby.

The NRA gets more than 60% of its budget from gun manufacturers and the same is true for GOA. Got any others? At least Blomberg is spending his own money for something he believes in without hoping to make a profit.

I like Blomberg so Nana Nana boo boo. He's got a lot more credibility than anybody on the gunner side.

[IronGate]

42. No, wrong, incorrect.

He's got more credibility, in your mind, than any on the pro 2A side.
In the minds of most pro 2A groups, he's nothing more than an authoritarian, racist, misogynistic asshole who funds Astra turf gun control groups who do more harm than good for gun control.

[flamin lib]

44. Dream on.

Does Wayne LP donate his own money?

Rave on!

Oh, and let me know when you come up with some real grass roots groups. You're confusing pro 2a with profit above all lobbyists.

[Duckhunter935]

50. Can you be kind enough

to post where you came up with those figures. I have a hard time believing them.

"Nana Nana boo boo"

Very nice retort, I have to give you credit for that. It really does raise the level of the discussion.

[flamin lib]

68. Read it in two articles in financial magazines. Business Insider and

Blomberg (the business magazine, not ET).

Nana Nana boo boo is the only appropriate response to 'its Blomberg so I get to ignore it' as if I give a shit what anyone thinks of the man.

[Glaug-Eldare]

56. The grassroots stuff tends to be state-level.

That's where the vast majority of laws get made, and Annapolis/Austin/St. Paul/etc. are a lot more accessible to the average citizen than Washington, DC. It takes an entirely different level of money to make an impact on the federal level, so it's very difficult for a national organization to operate without a lot of corporate contributions.

A few examples:

Gun Owners Action League (Massachusetts)
Maryland Shall Issue
Virginia Citizens Defense League

[flamin lib]

70. GOAL MA is indeed grass roots org. They spent less than $10k

In political donations. Haven't checked the other two.

These are not players in the lobbying/influence marketplace.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Your post #25 has three problems: 1)I insulted no one- the groups mentioned are...

...indeed larded heavily with prohibtionists and/or their less extreme cousins, the
'royalist' gun control advocates- i.e. Michael Bloomberg. Mayor Mike had no problem
whatsoever handing out pistol permits to the rich and famous, and neither did
many members of his creation Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

2) You apparently didn't notice my putdown of the NRA's politics...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=152318

You may despise the NRA's politics (I certainly do)...

...or my oft-voiced dislike of them:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=53805

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002467295

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=152238

Manichean thinking will mess with your head every time


3) None of the groups you mention teach people how to handle guns
safely (or not handle them at all, as per the Eddie Eagle program).

To put it bluntly, they don't take this approach...

Safe Roads Alliance- A not-for-profit organization dedicated to saving lives
through better driving

http://www.saferoadsalliance.org/adv-driver-training


Safe Roads Alliance was formed in 2006 as a not-for-profit Massachusetts organization dedicated to promoting safer driving.

Safe Roads provides educational services to all drivers on different aspects of driving safety, including: issues confronting elderly drivers, maintaining a vehicle for safe operation, child restraint systems, seat belt usage, reducing driving distractions, and driver courtesy and reduction of road-rage.

One of our primary programs is to provide drivers of all ages with access to driver training that far surpasses classes taken to obtain a license. Closed-course, hands-on, advanced driver strategies and techniques are learned in a safe, controlled environment with one goal: to make all drivers better drivers. Statistically teen drivers are the most important group for this training, but it is our feeling that every driver can improve their skills and would benefit from this program.

...they just keep saying the equivalent of: "Cars (guns) are awful and people shouldn't drive them", while acting as if they are morally superior to car (gun) owners.

IOW, they're a modern-day version of the Women's Christian Temperance Union

No thanks

[flamin lib]

69. No, they don't say no one should have guns. You are parroting the NRA which you

hold in such low regard.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. As long as those owners are pre-approved by TPTB, and use only 19th C. technology

May I enquire as to whether you post here with pen and ink and/or a mechanical
printing press? Did you ask your local chief of police for permission to express
your political views?

I also note that you do not dispute anything else that I said...

[flamin lib]

72. Some stuff just ain't worth the time. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. Ah yes, the George Aiken approach: Declare victory and leave

Nice talking with you...

[flamin lib]

74. I didn't declare victory, just stated the obvious. ttfn nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. Never get involved in a land war in Asia, and never...

...engage in an online argument with someone whose searching skills
are better than yours

[flamin lib]

77. and never let your alligator mouth overload your paper bag ass.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. The jibes of the politically ineffectual are more amusing than stinging

[flamin lib]

80. Be careful what you wish for, I just gave it to you.

[flamin lib]

79. Sigh, okay guess I have to tick em off one at a time.

As to 1) painting all anti violence advocates with a broad brush is insulting. I could do the same with Sovereign Citizens and a host of militia types. Didn't I see you on the reports from the Bundy ranch?

2) you profess to detest the NRA yet parrot the talking points. They all want to take our guns away!!1!1. Perhaps I should claim that you want to arm elementary school children with Uzis. Burgers and Bullets makes it look that way.

3) no, anti violence groups don't teach fire arms safety. Duh! Anti tobacco advocates didn't teach people to smoke either. If the goal is to reduce gun violence through legislation of who can buy guns it makes no sense to promote the ownership of guns.

So see, some of this shit just isn't the time. Poor logic is its own refutation.

Now post some more crap and declare victory. I'm done with you in this thread.

[IronGate]

31. Loudly got PPR'd?

Wow, did not know that.

[DonP]

32. To be completely accurate you mean PPR'd ... again

He'll be back ... as another Zombie to spew his "insight" on how the civil war made the BoR obsolete.

I wonder what triggered it this time?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. By way of information:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=279337&sub=trans

...and thanks to EarlG.

[DonP]

63. Huh, same as the last time

PPR'd for something unrelated to his fun and games down here.

The last time I think he pissed off the HoF group. This time it looks like he did the same to pretty much everyone on DU.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. As Led Zeppelin said:

The Song Remains the Same

[sarisataka]

23. There will be some conflict of interest

Much can be countered with "If it won't work how do we fix it"
Then the expert can either collaborate or let a flawed bill go foward that the author can say "We asked for input from..."

[JoePhilly]

27. Yes, let's find them, and create a graded license system for gun ownership.

Its a great idea.

I propose former military, Law Enforcement, and civilian firearms experts.

Together, they define a system to ensure that gun owners, all of them, pass some form of background check, and training for the kinds of weapons that they would like to own.

It would be similar to a driver's license. Start with a learner's permit. Then a basic license. If I want to drive commercial dump trucks, I need to get training and pass a test. Same for 18 wheelers. I want to own a semi automatic weapon, no problem, take the class, pass the test, get the license.

Its a simple model. And experts of the type I mention could set it up.

Shooting ranges could become training and license centers. Great source of income for the owner of the shooting range and the trainers, good for the economy too.

And we end up more gun owners who are trained on how to handle and maintain their weapons safely! They can brag about how they've just obtained the next level license.

You want to own a bazooka ... no problem ... get the right license and its all yours.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. You kind of missed the point

I was hoping to require that law makers be educated on firearms before making laws about topics they are mostly ignorant of.

[JoePhilly]

47. That's ok, I FIXED the point.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. I wasn't discounting your suggestions

Some of those ideas seem to be worth exploring.
Thanks for weighing in.

[oneshooter]

89. Will you also be willing to apply this system to other dangerous rights, or equipment?

Such as voting, pools, knives, automobiles?

[JoePhilly]

90. The system I described IS the system for driver's licenses.

Its already in place. It works so well, you didn't even notice it.

And could you please, PLEASE, describe a "graded" voting system. Maybe then we could discuss its implementation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. Some finer points

The DL system most states have applies to operation on public highways. Operate on your own land, make your own rules. That applies to mopeds and Mack trucks. (Not sure why you'd want a Mack truck to drive around your property but I generally don't interest myself in that sort of why.)

Manual shift and full auto transmissions are at the buyer's choice and feel free to pick a car with a 2.3 liter 4 to 7 liter 8. Most states require a CCW to carry in public places. Carry on your own land as you wish.

One type of "graded" voting system would be to attach a weight to each person's vote. Some votes would mean more than others. Maybe a person who has demonstrated a greater knowledge of the issues and candidates would cancel out the votes folks who opt not to test for voting registration. Maybe those with IQs under 90 only get half a vote. Maybe those with IQs under 75 can't vote at all.

In the past some were indirectly counted as having votes of greater weight; see Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 US Constitution.

[JoePhilly]

92. I'll be frank ...

... I know a number of gun owners. I'd say most of them are responsible.

But a few of them lack the mental capacity to keep and maintain a weapon safely. Think about everyone you know, and consider which of them have the capacity, and which don't.

A licensing system would ensure that everyone who owns a gun has some common ability with it.

The responsible gun owners I know are not against a simple system like this. In fact, the idea came from one of them. See, they are not afraid that they would be unable to pass the requirements. But as you might expect, some are afraid of exactly that.

A system of this type would allow responsible gun owners to be openly proud of their ability. They could even tell the parents of their kids friends not only that they have guns, but that he has proven his ability to keep and maintain those guns safely. And they could show their level of proficiency via the graded system.

The folks who fear this type of simple system tend to be worried that they will be found lacking. That they are on the list of "people who should not own a gun" among the people they know. These are the folks who don't really respect the weapons and have no problem allowing them to be used by people who really don't have the intellectual capacity to do so safely.

btw ... a graded system for guns could allow you to let others use your guns, and share them with others, on your own land ... because after all, everyone lives on 20 acre plots these days. But that could be allowed.

Thanks also for the nonsensical voting system, it made me laugh. Now all you need are some experts in the field of voting to help you take it to the next level.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

93. I'm always Frank...

...and Earnest...in New York I'm Frank and in Chicago I'm Earnest..." to misquote Sam Jackson. But seriously, I don't oppose some reasonable steps in right direction (universal background checks for one) that will make a difference, in exchange for dropping some laws that don't (7 round mag limits for one). I like safe storage for residences with those prohibited from possession (violent felons, children...).

I think the sooner the public sees through mindless legislative pandering like "assault weapon" bans, the sooner progress will be made and that progress will be more effective. I have no interest in protecting a system that would impose very unbalanced justice.

Case in point: http://articles.philly.com/2014-08-07/news/52519339_1_gun-charges-evan-nappen-intervention-program
Allen, with no violent history or pending charges of violence, is not eligible for pretrial intervention programs but Ray Rice, who was charged with assault, he can get out of jail free.

No violent act = 3 1/2 years in jail; violent act = can't work for 6 weeks and a rehab program. All you need to get justice is being a 1%er.

[Glaug-Eldare]

33. No. You can't require legislators to know everything about every subject,

or else they won't be able to do hardly anything at all. Legislators aren't gunsmiths, plumbers, mud engineers, dress designers, and pharmacists all at once, and it's absurd to expect them to be. Fortunately, these people typically have the opportunity to engage with lawmakers and provide testimony explaining why a law does or doesn't make sense. Citizens should make it their personal responsibility to play a part in the drafting, amending, and decision-making on bills affecting them. It's stupid to ban "shoulder things that go up," but the responsibility isn't on the legislators to spend all day studying the background of every bill before them -- it's on the people affected by it to testify and explain it to them.

[Eleanors38]

38. "people affect by it..." A measure of political viability.

[flamin lib]

43. What you describe is the original lobbyist, someone who hung out in the lobby of the hotel where leg

Stayed while Congress was in session.

Today's lobbyists organize fund raisers that fuel the money machine and thus buy influence in DC.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of lobbying, it's actually a good idea. Its just that the idea has metastasized into something that defeats the idea of one man, one vote. Now it's a few $million and all the votes you want.

[Glaug-Eldare]

48. To some extent, but as much as anything I mean testimony.

Regular folks coming to Annapolis and explaining why a bill is right or wrong, how it could be made better, how and who will be affected by it, etc. For important issues like gun rights, environmental protection, or public transportation, there are very often genuine grassroots organizations that maintain year-round contact with legislators and their staffs, and they can have a great impact on what gets to committee and what gets out.

[flamin lib]

75. I'm aware of this. OWS does this on banking/financial legislation.

But compared to $millions in campaign funds it's pretty much fruitless, satisfying maybe, but fruitless.

I don't have a solution to money in politics particularly with corporations being people and money being speech.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. It makes me sad when I see our elected officials...

...making fools of themselves saying things like magazines get "used up" and "shoulder thing..." not to mention folks like a certain Congressman who tied up a hearing trying to be sure that an influx of extra military personnel wouldn't cause Guam to "capsize".

I don't expect every one of them to take an 8 hour firearm class and spend a couple hours at a range.

Information is power.

[Glaug-Eldare]

55. In the words of a certain bourgeois outer space military officer,

INFORMATION IS AMMUNITION!!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. Well, General Steiner, another outer space officer said

"We must meet this threat with our courage, our valor, indeed with our very lives to ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy *now and always*!"

[Glaug-Eldare]

58. A great chief among my people once said,

E PLEBNISTA!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. As told to Cloud William:

"These words and the words that follow, were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well! They must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing!"

[Glaug-Eldare]

65. Oh, here's a good'n when somebody's arguing nonsense:

"Tellarites do not argue for reasons. They simply argue."

[IMG][/IMG]

[ileus]

59. Isn't knowing "guns kill people" enough?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. Sure it is

And where there's a will, there's a weapon.

[DesMoinesDem]

81. Do you want this on the streets???!!!!!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. Yikes! I'm calling Danny Glover.

[ileus]

83. Is not being a dumbass too much to ask?

I think we can all agree that before voting on such an important right, reps need to understand what the new law actually does.

There's still millions of folks that believe the 9x AWB, actually banned "assault" weapons. Including a shitload of the peeps that actually voted for it.


On another note I bought a couple more Pmags yesterday to feed the ARs with.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

85. One of my pet peeves is terminology

I've given up on the mag/clip thing and could care less.
Be able to name the main parts of the gun: stock/grip, barrel, trigger...
When you say a semi-auto fires 30 rounds in 1 to 2 seconds, you're to ignorant to have a vote. I don't expect an elected official to know everything ahead of time but, if you embarrass yourself, your two most vital public assets are gone, credibility and trust. Earning them back is much harder than losing them in first place.

PMAGS: A good mag is critical to safety and reliability.
I've heard good things about the SIG516, any thoughts?

[ileus]

87. A piston powered Sig is always a good bet.

One of my co-workers has the sig 556...a bit heavy but it's a work horse. I don't see why the 516 would be any different...I'm a big fan of Sig firearms.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. Thanks