Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Sancho

(9,207 posts)
237. State license...and it would save money and lives.
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 09:10 PM
Jun 2015

It's not my idea, but consistent with law and research. States already have permits and licenses that are legal. They work. I'm simply suggesting a more comprehensive license.

Nothing is original. If you want to find out about the 2nd, read. Then you will owe me an apology for your ignorance.

------------------------------------------

"The Second Amendment: A Biography"

By the president of the prestigious Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of renewed debate over guns in America, what does the Second Amendment mean? This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the 20th century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

From Booklist
Given the murkiness of the language of the Second Amendment and worries about armed citizens from the era of the Revolutionary War to the Civil War, from the settling of the western frontier to the gangsterism of the Prohibition era, the U.S. Supreme Court has generally ruled against the constitutional right to own a gun. In 2008 that all changed. Legal scholar Waldman examines the political forces behind that change, including the growing influence of the National Rifle Association and how gun rights play into the culture wars. Waldman offers historical perspective on the fierce debate to decide how much militia the nation should support and then goes on to trace the violent history of gun use in the U.S. and the increasingly contentious debate about crime and safety, all against the backdrop of debates about “originalism” as applied to the Constitution. This is a lively and engaging exploration of the radically different perspectives of the Founding Fathers, worried about the nation’s ability to protect itself yet fearful of a powerful military, and contemporary politicians fretting over culture wars and the role of government and the rights of individuals. --Vanessa Bush --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Review
“Waldman relates this tale in clear, unvarnished prose and it should now be considered the best narrative of its subject.” (Publishers Weekly)

“Waldman offers historical perspective on the fierce debate…A lively and engaging exploration.” (Booklist)

“Thoughtful, accessible...useful to anyone arguing either side of this endlessly controversial issue.” (Kirkus Reviews)

“The ongoing debate about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms continues to set off multiple explosions in the blogosphere. Waldman's new book will not make the most zealous NRA advocates happy, but for anyone who wants his or her history of the Second Amendment straight-up, this is the most comprehensive, accessible, and compelling version of the story in print.” (Joseph J. Ellis, author of Founding Brothers)

“From the founding of the Republic to the Newtown massacre of elementary school children, and beyond, Michael Waldman vividly portrays the evolution of a nation's passionate debate over the right to keep and bear arms. Activist, conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court may have thought they ended that debate in 2008, but with rich detail and crisp narrative, Waldman shows how it continues to reverberate across the landscape with important lessons for all Americans.” (Marcia Coyle, author of The Roberts Court)

“Through most of American history, the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to be a citizen-soldier, not an individual vigilante. With wit and erudition, Michael Waldman tells the story of how the Amendment’s meaning was turned upside-down and inside-out.” (David Frum, author of The Right Man: An Inside Account of the Bush White House)

“Michael Waldman gives us the turbulent life story of the Second Amendment. If one clause of the Constitution better deserved a quiet retirement, it is our right to keep and bear arms, a vestige of the Founding Fathers' concern with the role of the militia in a republican society. Yet today the Second Amendment has become one of the feistiest, most disputed clauses of the Constitution, and Waldman vividly explains why this obscure, minor provision has become so controversial.” (Jack Rakove, author of Original Meanings)

“Partisan pseudo-histories of gun regulation and the Second Amendment abound. Michael Waldman's excellent book slices through the propaganda with candor as well as scholarship. It advances an authentic and clarifying history that will surprise and enlighten citizens on all sides of the issue. Here is a smart and cogent history that performs a large public service.” (Sean Wilentz, author of The Rise of American Democracy)

“Anyone interested in the hot button issue of guns and their place in our society will find this book a helpful tool for ongoing discussion.” (Decatur Daily (Alabama))

“The Second Amendment is a smart history of guns and the US . . . his calm tone and habit of taking the long view offers a refreshing tonic in this most loaded of debates.” (Los Angeles Times)

“Waldman’s detractors would do well to read the book, which focuses less on taking a position on gun control and more on explaining what the Founding Fathers intended when they approved the amendment and how subsequent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere have transformed that intent. . . . Seeing the subject discussed and dissected in untypically calm, scholarly tones, then, is a refreshing development.” (Miami Herald)

“Rigorous, scholarly, but accessible book.” (New York Times)

“Compelling” (Washington Post)

“An insightful look at both the historical foundation of the Second Amendment . . . a welcome re-injection of historical context into the present debate over the rightful role of guns in American culture.” (Chicago Tribune)

“A welcome addition to the ongoing debate over gun rights and gun control in America.” (The Buffalo News)

“Terrific” (Nicholas Kristoff New York Times)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Wonder what other rights they'd like to get the 99% to pay for. ileus Jun 2015 #1
Laws like this don't infringe on gun ownership. eggplant Jun 2015 #42
Why should I have to have a license to exercise a Constitutional right? GGJohn Jun 2015 #45
easy DustyJoe Jun 2015 #68
I couldn't agree with you more. eom. GGJohn Jun 2015 #71
There are a few off the top of my head mitch96 Jun 2015 #69
sorry but a fail Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #72
true mitch96 Jun 2015 #82
But the point is that owning and operating these are not a Contitutionally protected right, GGJohn Jun 2015 #85
So help me understand mitch96 Jun 2015 #86
Exactly how my state does it, as most states do it, GGJohn Jun 2015 #91
So you are ok with a background check. eggplant Jun 2015 #92
Of course I'm ok with background checks, GGJohn Jun 2015 #94
So... eggplant Jun 2015 #96
Safety course? Yeah, I'd be ok with that, GGJohn Jun 2015 #98
How does requiring a license, if it is free, restrict your rights... eggplant Jun 2015 #102
How about a license to exercise your 1A? GGJohn Jun 2015 #107
I have to register to vote. eggplant Jun 2015 #109
A cetificate is not a license, it's just a piece of paper saying you passed a safety course. GGJohn Jun 2015 #114
You mention the 1A. eggplant Jun 2015 #127
Please point out where I ever said the 2A is absolute? GGJohn Jun 2015 #134
Same as in my state mitch96 Jun 2015 #101
Want to know the best way to lower firearms deaths? GGJohn Jun 2015 #104
Those would be great. eggplant Jun 2015 #105
You asked how would I lower the firearms deaths, GGJohn Jun 2015 #108
I didn't ask that. eggplant Jun 2015 #110
Ooops, you're right, GGJohn Jun 2015 #113
As supporters of gun control, we're all the same to you CreekDog Jun 2015 #119
Again, you're wrong. GGJohn Jun 2015 #122
I disagree Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #130
What kind of point are you making by answering for him CreekDog Jun 2015 #166
I am sorry I did not realize Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #168
First, you have to be honest Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #100
but there were means of personal Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #90
You need a permit to protest in many cities. jeff47 Jun 2015 #106
And I oppose those permits on the grounds that you shouldn't GGJohn Jun 2015 #111
Sorry, Duck Hunter was arguing no constitutional rights require a permit. jeff47 Jun 2015 #116
Does that just cover an individual Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #112
Hrm...I can't seem to find where the First Amendment only applies to individuals jeff47 Jun 2015 #115
The 1A is a restriction on govt to restrict free speech, which would apply to individuals and groups GGJohn Jun 2015 #118
And Duck Hunter is arguing the opposite. Might wanna take that up with him. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2015 #121
Glad we agree. eom. GGJohn Jun 2015 #123
And we may very well disagree Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #131
as with all things Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #126
Except that's not what you're arguing with the second amendment. jeff47 Jun 2015 #132
Wrong again Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #133
You mean a perfect analog for getting a DUI and having your license taken away? jeff47 Jun 2015 #158
Of course Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #160
Actually, it is checked in some states. jeff47 Jun 2015 #161
Don't waste your time awoke_in_2003 Jun 2015 #152
We do, thats the problem Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #156
You haven't been keeping up jmowreader Jun 2015 #163
That whole "Constitutional right" thing is really quite a stretch. Damansarajaya Jun 2015 #185
"Well Regulated Militia" ThoughtCriminal Jun 2015 #186
Well regulated Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #205
Your definition ThoughtCriminal Jun 2015 #238
What you fail to realize is that none of those are Constitutionally protected rights. GGJohn Jun 2015 #73
Why do I have to register to vote and prove my ID to exercise a Constitutional right? csziggy Jun 2015 #129
I'm opposed to these restrictions on voting, they're designed to restrict the poor, minorities, GGJohn Jun 2015 #135
What other Constitutional right can you kill your neighbor with? Politicalboi Jun 2015 #139
How about voting for Bush? GGJohn Jun 2015 #142
the pen or online comments Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #145
Yeah, thousands of times per year, just like with guns Orrex Jun 2015 #146
Quite probably so Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #147
You can't possibly believe that. Orrex Jun 2015 #148
please do not post unfactual content Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #149
That's a weak objection. Orrex Jun 2015 #150
and it is entirely factual, I know you do not like that Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #153
Doesn't support your claim. Orrex Jun 2015 #164
Nope Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #169
Well, we can go back and forth all day. Orrex Jun 2015 #171
Yep Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #174
All rights have limits, even your gun hero Scalia said so. Wow. nt Logical Jun 2015 #154
And I acknowledged that in an earlier thread. GGJohn Jun 2015 #173
It is almost as if they do not read the posts at all? Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #177
You don't have a voting registration card? Doctor_J Jun 2015 #176
Unfortunately, yes, GGJohn Jun 2015 #179
K&R! marym625 Jun 2015 #2
The problem is, gun control is like climate change in that opponents aren't basing their opinions DanTex Jun 2015 #3
Gun lobbyists are just like climate change deniers SecularMotion Jun 2015 #8
their fear and paranoia trumps all Skittles Jun 2015 #182
While gun control organizations use fake videos: friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #183
Here's the problem - no one with a gun fetish will Exilednight Jun 2015 #4
Yep...some of you know I've been suggesting a license for quite some time now. Sancho Jun 2015 #5
That, is the textbook definition of changing a right into a privilege. beevul Jun 2015 #180
BS..it's the textbook definition of the right of people to be safe... Sancho Jun 2015 #184
No one has "the right to be safe", they don't even have the right to police protection: friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #187
Yawn....read the book I linked and all the footnote cases...one recent example Sancho Jun 2015 #188
Nothing about your purported "right to be safe" in that friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #189
If you want to argue "legal language" then take it up with the legal scholars... Sancho Jun 2015 #190
"(P)revent dangerous people from possessing and using guns" friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #191
haha... the original post was a research study that these things work! Sancho Jun 2015 #192
'Not wanting the laws *you* want' =/= 'not wanting any laws' friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #193
I would have no problem with an "opinion permit"... Sancho Jun 2015 #194
Opinions can, and have, killed. friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #195
The social science research (like the Connecticut study) shows some of these work... Sancho Jun 2015 #197
This reads like the same bill of goods used to sell the Patriot Act. Sorry, no can do friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #199
if you ever have a better solution, let us know! Sancho Jun 2015 #200
"I suppose the license could also screen to see if you were on a terrorist watch list." friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #202
The one Ted Kennedy was on? beevul Jun 2015 #209
" You can prevent shooting by making easy access to guns harder for dangerous people." beevul Jun 2015 #212
Haha...I never had the terrorist watch list on my license! That was sarcasm... Sancho Jun 2015 #217
Sarcasm? beevul Jun 2015 #218
My idea for a license comes from simple experience.... Sancho Jun 2015 #221
I dont give a fig where it came from. beevul Jun 2015 #224
Sorry, but decades of scholars disagree with you.... Sancho Jun 2015 #226
Even the op ed with covers you cite there... beevul Jun 2015 #227
"What you seem to be defending..." I defend nothing of the sort friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #196
Ok..what's your answer??? Sancho Jun 2015 #198
To start with, fund the ATF properly and get them prosecuting illegal buyers friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #201
Many shootings could be prevented by a licensing process.... Sancho Jun 2015 #219
"The license would make it more (difficult) to possess guns." FTFY friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #233
Only if you were unstable, dangerous, or had some issue.... Sancho Jun 2015 #235
And who would pay for and administer this process? oneshooter Jun 2015 #236
State license...and it would save money and lives. Sancho Jun 2015 #237
And there it is. beevul Jun 2015 #216
I'm there too. License the operator Recursion Jun 2015 #203
The Boulware attack on Dallas police might be the poster child for any/some gun Dustlawyer Jun 2015 #6
Those students must be over 21 you know right? Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #10
... GGJohn Jun 2015 #13
They can't Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #16
I know. GGJohn Jun 2015 #20
So start tracking people with mental illness on a national basis hack89 Jun 2015 #208
Already posted and discussed here with some facts. Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #7
Those "facts" ignore the methodology employed Gormy Cuss Jun 2015 #38
so they cherrypicked the states Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #39
What an obtuse interpretation. Gormy Cuss Jun 2015 #47
so what states were used? Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #53
Follow the links. Gormy Cuss Jun 2015 #55
I did, I am not paying Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #57
Yes I can, but I'm not your Google monkey Gormy Cuss Jun 2015 #62
Ah, debunked then LittleBlue Jun 2015 #128
"Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy" Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #9
The OP title is proving itself already Major Nikon Jun 2015 #11
What you said! nt flamin lib Jun 2015 #22
Maybe because the OP's title is full of excrement? GGJohn Jun 2015 #23
Au contraire, mon frere Major Nikon Jun 2015 #125
Not really, GGJohn Jun 2015 #137
I so far have seen insults only from one side myself Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #140
Well, to be fair, I kinda was insulting with my excrement comment. eom. GGJohn Jun 2015 #141
Yes, but it was not directed at a person or group either Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #143
Yep. eom. GGJohn Jun 2015 #144
I don't consider you open minded on any gun topic. nt Logical Jun 2015 #155
Well, that would be your problem wouldn't it. eom. GGJohn Jun 2015 #162
Gun homicides dropped by more than 40% in the US over that time period Travis_0004 Jun 2015 #12
Gun homicides have dropped! Fantastic! SheilaT Jun 2015 #18
Please point out where ANYONE on this board has said that GGJohn Jun 2015 #21
Every time I bring up the toddlers and parents, SheilaT Jun 2015 #24
Again, please point out where ANYONE on this board GGJohn Jun 2015 #26
and every time I see Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #33
Yes, part of being a gun owner is being responsible, especially around children. SheilaT Jun 2015 #214
But a vast majority are and Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #222
I never once said gun homicides are acceptable Travis_0004 Jun 2015 #25
Actually, I would love to get the number of guns down to zero. SheilaT Jun 2015 #28
"we need to be licensed to drive cars, their are sanctions if we do so badly" Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #37
But very few people point SheilaT Jun 2015 #206
One is a right and one is not Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #207
Which comedian said to License mitch96 Jun 2015 #136
Chris rock Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #138
Interesting LittleBlue Jun 2015 #124
I hope senator Manchin will bring this up. Betty Karlson Jun 2015 #14
Kudos to CT and other states who pass meaningful gun control laws. Dont call me Shirley Jun 2015 #15
I'm totally in favor of such laws, but.... Adrahil Jun 2015 #17
At the time of my posting this, it says there are 17 replies. I see only 6. That means valerief Jun 2015 #19
Why would persons trained in their disciplines know more than the malaise Jun 2015 #27
This has also been posted in the Gun Control Reform Activist Group mountain grammy Jun 2015 #29
.... GGJohn Jun 2015 #30
How does this violate the SoP for GD ...? etherealtruth Jun 2015 #32
You'll have to take it up with the Admins, GGJohn Jun 2015 #35
I copied and pasted the text of the SoP as it relates to guns etherealtruth Jun 2015 #36
Are you a host in General Discussion? 99Forever Jun 2015 #60
Most are locked Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #63
Never said I was a host, GGJohn Jun 2015 #64
I didn't ask for your opinion. 99Forever Jun 2015 #70
little skarky, are we not Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #75
Then why did you even respond to my post? GGJohn Jun 2015 #77
Why? 99Forever Jun 2015 #87
Because I felt like it. eom. GGJohn Jun 2015 #89
Gun bully mentality. 99Forever Jun 2015 #93
Pure comedy gold. GGJohn Jun 2015 #95
Of course you weren't. 99Forever Jun 2015 #97
Funny, we "gun bullies" aren't the one's throwing insults and names, GGJohn Jun 2015 #99
And a "gotta get the last word" one, at that! 99Forever Jun 2015 #117
Back atcha! GGJohn Jun 2015 #120
Ah yes, more insults Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #103
I am not a host, but my experience with hosts and hosting .... etherealtruth Jun 2015 #83
We need more research that identifies the risks to self and others associated with gun ownership or etherealtruth Jun 2015 #31
Gun posts are like offering candy to trolls packman Jun 2015 #34
Pure comedy gold. GGJohn Jun 2015 #40
The host's Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #50
President Obama strongly believes that the Second Amendment guarantees Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #43
They'll get tired soon enough and declare victory SwankyXomb Jun 2015 #81
LOL. GGJohn Jun 2015 #88
"like all laws are so fucking precious to them" beevul Jun 2015 #181
An answer to your citing percentages packman Jun 2015 #210
Rule number 1 from the gun control talking point manual. beevul Jun 2015 #211
Do you wish the tel. # or e-mails of the Newtown's victims packman Jun 2015 #213
Ahh the double down. beevul Jun 2015 #215
And I have yet to see someone Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #223
I suspect your interlocutor won't be replying... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #234
It says 39 replies. I see only 13. That means most of the posters to this thread I have valerief Jun 2015 #41
I can summarize the posts you can't see... DanTex Jun 2015 #44
Except that's not true is it? GGJohn Jun 2015 #48
Yes, it is. DanTex Jun 2015 #49
No, it isn't. GGJohn Jun 2015 #51
Yay! We're having fun now! DanTex Jun 2015 #52
Agreed. GGJohn Jun 2015 #54
Not really into baseball. Basketball, soccer, tennis, are my favorite sports to watch. DanTex Jun 2015 #58
Saw that, GGJohn Jun 2015 #61
LOL. Maybe he's angling for that lucrative Trojan endorsement... DanTex Jun 2015 #65
LOL, GGJohn Jun 2015 #66
Let's be honest. The dude is 6'8. He's gotta have like size 18 feet and DanTex Jun 2015 #74
Damn, you went there Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #76
Much more fun than arguing about guns! DanTex Jun 2015 #78
agreed Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #80
LOL, one last comment, GGJohn Jun 2015 #79
This is one of the reasons Skinner does not care Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #46
K&R Jefferson23 Jun 2015 #56
Looking forward to reading the actual study. aikoaiko Jun 2015 #59
I don't understand, the Brady Bill is in effect? StoneCarver Jun 2015 #67
Uh, no. GGJohn Jun 2015 #84
Sounds well-regulated awoke_in_2003 Jun 2015 #151
What's with the name calling insults? Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #159
You can't talk sense to people who need a gun in their pants to walk down the street, or a closet Hoyt Jun 2015 #157
K&R Pooka Fey Jun 2015 #165
So what's the big deal about getting a permit? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2015 #167
Very cute Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #170
Is duckhunting protected by the constitution? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2015 #172
Well, if you cared to read my posts, I do not have an issue with it Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #175
Do you have any idea what his user name means? eom. GGJohn Jun 2015 #178
Guns have nuts?? I never noticed any on mine! I've had some Walnut stocks/grips before though... Ghost in the Machine Jun 2015 #204
And where do the criminals find guns to steal? -none Jun 2015 #228
Yeah, and we've had more than a few stolen from POLICE CARS around here the past few years... Ghost in the Machine Jun 2015 #229
No, I am blaming the people that think they need guns to live in our society. -none Jun 2015 #230
Some people DO *need* guns to live in our society. People like me, who HUNT to supplement the Ghost in the Machine Jun 2015 #231
"Most people" does not, a dictatorship, make. beevul Jun 2015 #232
The majority of my firearms a manual safety. ileus Jun 2015 #220
Well, you're such a manly man. nt Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2015 #225
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The new gun safety study ...»Reply #237