• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does this sound helpful, or like a possible solution to the gun violence issue?

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
34,214
Reaction score
24,564
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The basis for this plan seems to start with universal gun registration which will likely include “user fees” exactly like vehicle registration currently does. That alone virtually converts a Constitutional right into a mere state issued privilege.

It is already illegal for a ‘prohibited person’ to possess any gun, yet that law is currently inadequately enforced. The idea of creating a $10K fine and 5 year prison sentence as the mandatory minimum for that non-violent “gun crime” will never be accepted by the woke and SJW crowd.


Do you oppose voter registration?
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
34,214
Reaction score
24,564
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yes, obviously these measures would help the situation. But as you can see from this thread, gun owners refuse to be registered. It is a necessary step to make any decent gun legislation enforceable, but it will never happen without a major shift in power.

They aren't really interested in even attempting to solve the problem. Not solving the problem is what gives them the justification to play pretend hero at the gun range on the weekends.
 

Elmo

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2020
Messages
1,231
Reaction score
684
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The vast, vast majority of gun owners are already responsible.
And yet, a large fraction of guns used illegally were stolen from those same "responsible gun owners". That's the problem with having 400 million guns in this country. The criminals can never be disarmed because there will always be enough careless gun owners to resupply them.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,230
Reaction score
24,217
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​

Stop right there. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

The right to keep and bear arms should not require "licensing." That makes it a privilege and not a right.

The right to keep and bear arms should not require one "register" their weapons. That also makes it a privilege not a right. Moreover, it makes it easier to confiscate any weapon subsequently deemed "illegal."

IMO no arms should be illegal. Only those weapons that would not be considered a standard individual weapon can be denied/limited, i.e. one that is crew served, area effect, or single use are not "arms."

2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​
3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

Since I dispute a licensing and registering of one's arms the above would of course be unreasonable.

I am pro second amendment,

Doesn't really sound like it to me, since I dispute that licensing and registering of one's arms per the above would of course be "reasonable."

but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I agree with this, in that one is always personally responsible for what they do to cause harm and fail to reasonably do to prevent harm.

But all your list does is make the right a limited privilege.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,336
Reaction score
50,331
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How would your solution have prevented Salvador Ramos from "roaming freely among us"?

He would have to have been subjected to due process. What are you alleging was the justification for that?

What "due process of law" would you suggest would have stopped Salvador Ramos?

Involuntary commitment or whatever folks think that ‘red flag’ laws requiring due process would accomplish.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,336
Reaction score
50,331
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Do you oppose voter registration?

Nope, but voter registration has no user fee by law. It is also possible to register to vote on the spot (at the polling place) in many (if not most) states.

BTW, voter registration applies to the person - not to each vote that person may choose to cast. I have no objection to registering potential gun owners and carriers by allowing them to voluntarily pass the NICS BGC and then having their valid, state issued, photo ID stamped “GUN OK”.
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
34,214
Reaction score
24,564
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nope, but voter registration has no user fee by law. It is also possible to register to vote on the spot (at the polling place) in many (if not most) states.

BTW, voter registration applies to the person - not to each vote that person may choose to cast. I have no objection to registering potential gun owners and carriers by allowing them to voluntarily pass the NICS BGC and then having their valid, state issued, photo ID stamped “GUN OK”.

So you agree, as long as there is no fee to register a gun, then gun registration is constitutional?
 

BirdinHand

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
6,990
Reaction score
5,586
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, spending more money on federal (state) beuracracy to create and enforce new laws...the vast majority of which won't apply to legal and responsible gun owners??

Yep, American way. Throw more money and more government at a problem, that ALWAYS fixes things.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,336
Reaction score
50,331
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So you agree, as long as there is no fee to register a gun, then gun registration is constitutional?

Nope, but registering legal gun owners would be. We do not register the “secret ballot” votes we register the voters.

Isn’t that the idea behind universal BGC laws - to assure that the person intending to take legal possession of any gun is not a ‘prohibited person’?
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
34,214
Reaction score
24,564
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nope, but registering legal gun owners would be. We do not register the “secret ballot” votes we register the voters.

Isn’t that the idea behind universal BGC laws - to assure that the person intending to take legal possession of any gun is not a ‘prohibited person’?

Why would registering gun owners be unconstitutional? We register voters in every state... Not registered, you don't get to vote...
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,336
Reaction score
50,331
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why would registering gun owners be unconstitutional? We register voters in every state... Not registered, you don't get to vote...

I never said that registering gun owners would be unconstitutional. I clearly stated that registering legal gun owners would be constitutional, otherwise “shall issue” LTC permits would be ruled unconstitutional.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
6,689
Reaction score
3,220
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​
2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​
3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

I am pro second amendment, but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I fully expect for this idea to have flaws, so please be respectful in your criticism.
Could be an excellent idea with a small tweak. Statistically, a million gun owners are imposing a significant risk and casualty toll on society, and while some are better and safer than others there's no guarantee that even the most responsible owner won't have their weapons stolen. There's also no way of being assured that owners will be able to pay these hefty fines if required.

So instead, why not incorporate those payments in from the start as a licensing fee, to be paid back over time with appropriate interest beginning from, say, three years of responsible ownership? Deterrence usually doesn't work too well; incentivization tends to be much more effective.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
91,001
Reaction score
44,067
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stop right there. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

The right to keep and bear arms should not require "licensing." That makes it a privilege and not a right.

The right to keep and bear arms should not require one "register" their weapons. That also makes it a privilege not a right. Moreover, it makes it easier to confiscate any weapon subsequently deemed "illegal."

IMO no arms should be illegal. Only those weapons that would not be considered a standard individual weapon can be denied/limited, i.e. one that is crew served, area effect, or single use are not "arms."



Since I dispute a licensing and registering of one's arms the above would of course be unreasonable.



Doesn't really sound like it to me, since I dispute that licensing and registering of one's arms per the above would of course be "reasonable."



I agree with this, in that one is always personally responsible for what they do to cause harm and fail to reasonably do to prevent harm.

But all your list does is make the right a limited privilege.
Who says an "area effect" weapon is not "arms?"

Who says a tank is not "arms?"

Who says a nuke is not "arms?"

What is the point of the 2nd amendment if it doesn't cover anti-aircraft missiles?
 
Last edited:

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
11,816
Reaction score
6,392
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Firearm registration is unconstitutional, and you clearly are not pro-Second Amendment. So much for your solution.

Where does it say that firearm registration is unconstitutional. registration does not limit your ability to own, buy, sell or carry a gun, so how is it unconstitutional. According to this SCOTUS they have ruled there is no right to privacy with their ruling on Roe, so how do you prove that registering a gun is unconstitutional. Above is a link to an article that gives the right court decisions.
 

The Old Soul

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
1,690
Reaction score
879
Location
PHX
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​
2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​
3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

I am pro second amendment, but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I fully expect for this idea to have flaws, so please be respectful in your criticism.

.
How about changing the definition of 'arms' as referenced in the Constitution to 'Non-lethal PPD (Personal Protection Device)?' The reason we own guns is personal protection; taking up arms against the government is insane.

If we traded firearms for PPD across the board, everyone who wants, could own and carry defense mechanisms on the order of stun-guns, tear-gas guns, mace guns, sonic guns, or anything that would disable a perp and render them incapacitated. It would also open up a whole new industry, as well as largely take homicide off the outcomes list.

Killing another human being is tough baggage to carry through life, even if it was due to someone trying to kill you. I'd much rater see a perp tried and sentenced, than ending their problems with bullet.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
17,495
Reaction score
14,633
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​
2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​
3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

I am pro second amendment, but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I fully expect for this idea to have flaws, so please be respectful in your criticism.

.
Since most of the recent mass shooters legally obtained their weapons, what would any of this do?
 

Excast

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
3,911
Reaction score
6,600
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If I need insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle, people should need to purchase insurance in order to own weapons.

But we all know absolutely nothing of any significance is going to change until a new generation takes over and tells their parents/grandparents that the lives of school children are worth more than gun fetishization by sad, angry people.
 

Artymoon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
1,963
Location
U.S.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should the irresponsible be prohibited from possessing firearms? How do we tell who is irresponsible until they aren't?
Should the 99.9 be punished for the irresponsibility of the .10? Moreover, should the 100 be punished before something even happens?
And yet, a large fraction of guns used illegally were stolen from those same "responsible gun owners". That's the problem with having 400 million guns in this country. The criminals can never be disarmed because there will always be enough careless gun owners to resupply them.
Are you suggesting that gun owners are just tossing their guns in the street to be picked up? Many of these are stolen when they were locked up in their houses or vehicles. But that seems to be a prevailing mentality, blame the person who had their gun stolen and seek to punish them.
 

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,376
Reaction score
7,041
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​
2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​
3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

I am pro second amendment, but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I fully expect for this idea to have flaws, so please be respectful in your criticism.

.
1. Similar to Project Exile. I would expand your idea to anyone convicted of a felony while in possession of a firearm, whether they legally purchased the weapon or not.

2. Hard no. Punishes a legal gun owner when the target should be the criminals.

3. No. How are others in the household supposed to train and practice with a weapon if they aren’t allowed to posses one outside the home?
 

Antiwar

Green Party progressive
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
20,659
Reaction score
3,865
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
With respect:

It's way past the time to start melting down barbaric weapons.
 

LostInSeattle

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Messages
2,532
Reaction score
1,513
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​
2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​
3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

I am pro second amendment, but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I fully expect for this idea to have flaws, so please be respectful in your criticism.

.
Great questions.

I think the first part of #2 would prove counterproductive as it would disincentivize people from reporting their guns stolen. I would much prefer that gun owners be required to safely store their guns in a gun safe when they don't have it with them; that would be a better use of their money, IMO. If the gun were stolen from the gun safe, that shouldn't be on them.

I think we should also have requirements for reporting private gun sales, and mandatory testing for owning a firearm. In other words, you would have to be able to demonstrate that you can handle a gun correctly and safely in order to receive a permit. Just a one-time thing.
 
Top Bottom