Random Question:

Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by ak_powder_monkey, Mar 30, 2007.

  1. ak_powder_monkey

    ak_powder_monkey Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    326
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Location:
    Juneau/ Eagle River Alaska
    Why would a license to possess any firearm be a bad thing?

    Heres what I'm invisioning, you go to your local firearm liscencing office (like a dmv) take a test showing you know gun safety, maybe fire off a few rounds safely, just like you do with a car, they give you an liscence or a mark on you state ID and you are on your way, no more background checks when you buy a gun, no more weird waiting periods, you walk into the store buy your gun, they check your liscence you leave with your gun. Gun controll advocates feel safer, you don't have to deal with a ton of BS whenever you carry, or buy a gun everybody wins.

    Am I wrong here?
     
  2. slowshooter

    slowshooter Banned

    Messages:
    12,531
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    Yes. And deeply wrong at that.

    :fp
     
  3. Packman

    Packman Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,985
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2001
    Location:
    Merrill, WI
    Sad that a moderate lefty.

    Yes,

    Slow is moderate in many ways. had to point that out to you AK.

    You (AK) have had too much time in schools with liberals with out enough time in the world.

    But that is just my humble opinion.
     
  4. RW

    RW Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,583
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Location:
    infamous state of chicago
    We do not need a license for firearms we already have a constitional right.
    It's called the second amendment under the "Bill of rights". "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed".



    Please we have enough bureaucracy as it is. :mad:
     
  5. ak_powder_monkey

    ak_powder_monkey Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    326
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Location:
    Juneau/ Eagle River Alaska
    Boy would I be ****ed to have to wait the 72 hour period in a lot of states to buy a gun.

    I think regulated means you can put regulations so your constitutional aurgument is pretty moot.

    I'm not saying take away to guns, I'm saying make people responsible for their actions, we need a liscence to drive a car who here honestly complains about that seriously? Why not a simple one time liscence so you don't need to go through the background check process, you know you aren't selling your gun to a fellon, you wouldn't have to wait 72 hours to get your gun, and the non gun holding population would feel safer?

    Now get out from behind your "OMG HE'S A F****** ANTI" and discuss this not just yell about it because if I am a democrat in some sort of legislative body (and I hope to be) and gun control efforts come along I'd like to set forth a solution that works for everyone. I would much rather be able to sway the minds of the idiots in the democratic party (yes there are a few) than see my gun rights disappear.

    And to the person who says I need to get out in the real world, get a clue, see how long you last setnetting then come back to me and tell me that.


    Now enough yelling, lets have a good discussion about this, how would having a liscence hurt your right to bear arms in any way? How would it hurt you other than the hour of time you'd have to take out of your busy day to get it, or to get your son one?
     
  6. ole cypress

    ole cypress Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,924
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Location:
    SW TENNESSEE

    yes you're wrong, who's to say that you did your little test, fired a few rounds, passed, and got your little sticker. and then a few years later, after you've gotten out of prison for whatever you went in for, you still have your state id with the little sticker on it that says you passed the test.
    what now? that is the same reason that any time you apply for a loan they pull your credit again.
    you can't just tell them, well my credit score was 750 3 years ago.
    they want to check and make sure that you haven't filed bankruptcy since the last time.
    same thing with the background check.

    ole
     
  7. RW

    RW Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,583
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Location:
    infamous state of chicago
    If you knew anything about Illinois you would know that we already have an
    F.O.I.D. Firearm Owners Identification, It is regulated here. It does not work for it's intended reason. It only persecutes the law abiding citizen.

    Regulate all you want, but not with my tax dollars. There's enough laws on the books to prosecute law breakers-prosecute them. Bottom lline is, there is ALWAYS going to be GOOD people and BAD people, and there is no regulation going to change it!
     
  8. GulfCoast

    GulfCoast Moderate Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    13,255
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Location:
    Biloxi, MS, USA
    Never give a burecrat the ability to tell an honest man "no."
     
  9. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,506
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    APM,
    This sounds pretty good in theory, but...
    First, there are constitutional issues here. There is nothing in the constitution about driving a car, but there is about arms. Second, unless you plan to drive your car on public roads, you don't need squat. Just pass the cash and go home. Drive your car all you want on your own property.

    It is not clear what your proposal would accomplish. Is there any evidence that this would reduce crime or violence? If so, I'd like to hear about it.

    I don't know if this has been tried in any states, or how it has worked out. Please let me know what you have learned.

    Thanks,
    David

    ps. What GulfCoast said...
     
  10. 'tween_fly_ways

    'tween_fly_ways Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    5,448
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    South Tennessee via North Alabama
    Lots of issues here. . .

    It is a constitutional right, placed so that citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

    Decent folk don't commit crimes, criminals don't obey laws.

    "well regulated" in the 2nd (use in the 1700's) has nothing to do with the modern use of "regulation" as you apparently desire.

    There are tons of reasons the idea is simply a slap in the face of the constitution as well as thinking individuals, but I'd really like to hear your answer to TOD's question.
     

Share This Page