How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[Feynman Lives!]

Background checks effect gun owners, red flag laws effect gun owners , licensing effects law abiding gun owners , honest and knowledgeable gun owners.

Only if they can't meet the requirements. If they are not knowledgeable, or not honest, or their mental health would drive a judge to rule that they are a danger to themselves or others. If not, it won't affect them any more than going to the DMV and getting a driver's license. So the question is: do they affect YOU?

I can understand the refusal to answer by anybody who DOES feel affected. All others will.... not only be fine with it. But would welcome the opportunity to have their proficiency and mental health being acknowledged..... AND would be more than happy with the fact that those who might pose a threat to the honest and competent ones being scrutinized.

 

[RF667799]

If you can't answer the question, it is most definitely about you.


If you believe a Supreme Court resolution infringes your rights.... that's your problem. I would agree that the Supreme Court has often overstepped their authority. Especially in the last couple of decades and most significantly with Heller.. But what they resolve is The Law of the Land whether we agree with it or not. That's what the constitution SAYS! And none of my proposals contradict any Supreme Court decision.

So you're on your own beating a dead horse....

Your proposals amount to a de facto ban. We'll eventually see how the Illinois ban on sporting rifle sales makes out before SCOTUS. But even that ban didn't go as far as your proposal for an absolute ban on ammunition.

 

[jaeger19]

Only if they can't meet the requirements.

If they are not knowledgeable, or not honest, or their mental health would drive a judge to rule that they are a danger to themselves or others. If not, it won't affect them any more than going to the DMV and getting a driver's license. So the question is: do they affect YOU?

Going to the dmv to get a drivers license affects me.
Ever stood in line for the dmv. Ever stood in line for 2 hours only to have them close because it’s too late . Even though you took half a day off from work. ?
And in my case. The sheriffs office where the dmv is is about 45 minutes away.

And of course what does this licensing entail?
Can you answer that. Do I just show up and get a license if I pass the background check?

If that’s it? What’s the point of licensing? I do that when I buy a firearm from a dealer.

Oh wait, NOW you said “ proficiency “ has to be evaluated”

When I renew my drivers license I don t have to do another test.
But it sounds like you are going to require that as well. And I doubt you can do that in the dmv area.
Oh then a mental health test. Which is also not required by the dmv.

So you sir need to stop lying .

I can understand the refusal to answer by anybody who DOES feel affected. All others will.... not only be fine with it. But would welcome the opportunity to have their proficiency and mental health being acknowledged..... AND would be more than happy with the fact that those who might pose a threat to the honest and competent ones being scrutinized.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Going to the dmv to get a drivers license affects me.

I'm sure... It also affects the people saved by the requirement to show proficiency and a minimum of abilities. And I WANT people who share the road with me to be ONLY those who can show the same. VERY much worth it to stand in line so that I know that the guy who has the red light is not going to kill me.

Of course, the guy who CAN'T show their abilities and knowledge would prefer not to bother with it. But now it's THEIR problem... not mine.

Same thing happens with guns. People who CAN show proficiency and abilities using guns don't want to have to deal with people with a gun who DON'T have the ability, mental health and background to operate one. But ONLY people who are proficient.

But people who have some impediment: lack of knowledge, lack of physical abilities, mental health issues,... THOSE are the ONLY ones who would prefer not to need to show them. Same thing with driving as with operating a gun.

So it looks like we have now discovered WHY pro-gun folk in this thread DON'T like my proposals: they are afraid of any requirement to pass a background check, or an abilities test, or a mental health test....

Interesting....

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Ever stood in line for the dmv. Ever stood in line for 2 hours only to have them close because it’s too late . Even though you took half a day off from work. ?

BTW, no! I have NEVER had to stand in line 2 hours at the DMV. Even when I didn't get an appointment, I have never had to wait even an hour. But usually 10 to 15 minutes including the waiting time... Once at the desk, it's pretty quick: they check my record, my eye-sight, a few questions... .in and out...

I think they might be holding you for some extra scrutiny, fella.... They might be thinking twice about whether they should allow you to drive or not. And if that applies to DRIVING, I can DEFINITELY understand why you don't want ANY requirements for you to get a gun.

 

[RF667799]

I'm sure... It also affects the people saved by the requirement to show proficiency and a minimum of abilities. And I WANT people who share the road with me to be ONLY those who can show the same. VERY much worth it to stand in line so that I know that the guy who has the red light is not going to kill me.

You don't know that. People are killed in intersections by licensed drivers everyday. If you don't realize that, you're likely a terrible driver. Though you talk about motor vehicles and driving as if you aren't a driver at all.

Of course, the guy who CAN'T show their abilities and knowledge would prefer not to bother with it. But now it's THEIR problem... not mine.

Same thing happens with guns. People who CAN show proficiency and abilities using guns don't want to have to deal with people with a gun who DON'T have the ability, mental health and background to operate one. But ONLY people who are proficient.

But people who have some impediment: lack of knowledge, lack of physical abilities, mental health issues,... THOSE are the ONLY ones who would prefer not to need to show them. Same thing with driving as with operating a gun.

I have no impediment to operating a gun. But being subject to licensing would be inconvenient. Your "THOSE are the ONLY ones" is refuted.

So it looks like we have now discovered WHY pro-gun folk in this thread DON'T like my proposals: they are afraid of any requirement to pass a background check, or an abilities test, or a mental health test....

Interesting....

It's amusing that you think it's constitutional to require licensing to exercise a fundamental right.

 

[RF667799]

BTW, no! I have NEVER had to stand in line 2 hours at the DMV. Even when I didn't get an appointment, I have never had to wait even an hour. But usually 10 to 15 minutes including the waiting time... Once at the desk, it's pretty quick: they check my record, my eye-sight, a few questions... .in and out...

Those are the requirements you propose for using a gun in public areas?

I think they might be holding you for some extra scrutiny, fella.... They might be thinking twice about whether they should allow you to drive or not. And if that applies to DRIVING, I can DEFINITELY understand why you don't want ANY requirements for you to get a gun.

 

[jaeger19]

I'm sure... It also affects the people saved by the requirement to show proficiency and a minimum of abilities.

No one is saved by the requirement you ridiculous dude.

And I WANT people who share the road with me to be ONLY those who can show the same. VERY much worth it to stand in line so that I know that the guy who has the red light is not going to kill me.

Really. Cool . Let’s do that. Then you can be required to go through a mental health exam every five years so you can drive. Then pass a driving exam every five years . Not to mention lose your license if you have a felony conviction and if you have a stalking charge or a restraining order
I bet you sure as heck wouldn’t put up with that .
Lmao.
You talk great game but you are full of crap.

And you know what will happen with those tgat can’t pass?
Nothing. So they dont have a license .. it’s not like criminals were going to do this licensing anyway. So what have you accomplished? Nothing but put barriers in front of of gun owners and wasted money that could have gone to say mental health:

Of course, the guy who CAN'T show their abilities and knowledge would prefer not to bother with it. But now it's THEIR problem... not mine.

No. It will still be your problem. If they planned on killing you. They are going to say “ gee if I don’t license myself for firearms there is no way I can kill him. “
Lmao

Same thing happens with guns. People who CAN show proficiency and abilities using guns don't want to have to deal with people with a gun who DON'T have the ability, mental health and background to operate one. But ONLY people who are proficient.

licensing sure as heck doesn’t accomplish that.

But people who have some impediment: lack of knowledge, lack of physical abilities, mental health issues,... THOSE are the ONLY ones who would prefer not to need to show them. Same thing with driving as with operating a gun.

Drivers don’t have to show them now.

So it looks like we have now discovered WHY pro-gun folk in this thread DON'T like my proposals: they are afraid of any requirement to pass a background check, or an abilities test, or a mental health test....

Interesting....

No. They just do t want useless regulation that’s only intent and effect is to discourage and restrict gun owners constitutional rights .

Much like voter I D laws . Required intrauterine ultrasounds etc.

 

[jaeger19]

BTW, no! I have NEVER had to stand in line 2 hours at the DMV. Even when I didn't get an appointment, I have never had to wait even an hour. But usually 10 to 15 minutes including the waiting time... Once at the desk, it's pretty quick: they check my record, my eye-sight, a few questions... .in and out...

Hmmm. So that’s what you want for licensing then. An eye check, check your record . And out you go?
To carry a firearm in public.

Well in that case , we don’t need really any licensing. Just getting your drivers license should suffice then!!!

Okay. I’ll go with tgat. All I need to buy , sell and carry a firearm is a drivers license ! And since states recognize drivers licenses in every state , I can now carry concealed in every state!!!

What an awesome idea Feynman !
All I need is an eye test and a quick background check at the dmv and I get to carry concealed in any state in the USA .

Is that your idea? Or you you like to retract your statement that’s getting a gun license will be like renewing a drivers license. ?

Hmmm.

Silly anti gunner.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Those are the requirements you propose for using a gun in public areas?

You think those are the only ones you would pass?

 

[CLAX1911]

No!!! Not for private sales! Why do you oppose them? You can tell us.... Would YOU not be able to pass one?

You can't have them for private sales. If I sell my gun to somebody and don't do a background check on them how are you going to know?

If many states have them they are NOT unconstitutional. But, more importantly, are you afraid they will affect you personally?

It's not constitutional just because you're getting away with it.

The right to drive a car! You're not answering the question. Why would that affect YOU? Are you concerned YOU wouldn't pass a gun proficiency test? Or just that a criminal or an irresponsible gun owner might not pass it?

You're trying to make this personal. Why?

 

[RF667799]

You think those are the only ones you would pass?

For someone so confident in their proposals, you have a marked hostility to being questioned about them.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Really. Cool . Let’s do that. Then you can be required to go through a mental health exam every five years so you can drive.

If I pose a threat to myself or others, a judge can order my driving license taken away. There is a red-flag law for driving. Why not for owning an assault weapon! Are you afraid a judge might deem you a danger?

What an awesome idea Feynman !
All I need is an eye test and a quick background check at the dmv and I get to carry concealed in any state in the USA

You'll need more to use a machine designed to KILL than one designed to take you from point A to point B. My response was about you complaining about the 2 hour wait.

But now we learn that all you can pass is an eye exam and quick background check.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Hmmm. So that’s what you want for licensing then. An eye check, check your record . And out you go?

Is that all you could pass?

On another forum (the one I originally brought this up in) some responsible gun owners (you probably wouldn't know anything about that) brought up the need for a "graduation process". That's where I got the lingo on the OP from. They felt there was a series of requirements that should be met before obtaining a license to own guns. Responsible gun experts would determine exactly what those requirements would be. But my proposal is that there SHOULD be more requirements than there are to drive a car. And consider the fact that, to drive a car, you need to pass a theoretical test and a practical test.

But, of course, people who would not be ABLE to pass such tests would oppose them. Responsible and knowledgeable gun owners would have not problem...

 

[JMB1911A1]

BTW, no! I have NEVER had to stand in line 2 hours at the DMV. Even when I didn't get an appointment, I have never had to wait even an hour. But usually 10 to 15 minutes including the waiting time... Once at the desk, it's pretty quick: they check my record, my eye-sight, a few questions... .in and out...

I think they might be holding you for some extra scrutiny, fella.... They might be thinking twice about whether they should allow you to drive or not. And if that applies to DRIVING, I can DEFINITELY understand why you don't want ANY requirements for you to get a gun.

So, you haven’t taken a proficiency test in how many years? Why not? Shouldn’t it be required?

 

[RF667799]

If I pose a threat to myself or others, a judge can order my driving license taken away. There is a red-flag law for driving. Why not for owning an assault weapon!

Read your own words carefully. I happen to think you're just being disingenuous in constantly being confused about owning something vs operating something on the public commons.

Are you afraid a judge might deem you a danger?


You'll need more to use a machine designed to KILL than one designed to take you from point A to point B. My response was about you complaining about the 2 hour wait.

You (nor anyone else) has been able to support the categorical claim you make here.

But now we learn that all you can pass is an eye exam and quick background check.

Now we learn how desperate your responses have become.

Oh wait...that was evident a long time ago.

 

[RF667799]

Is that all you could pass?

On another forum (the one I originally brought this up in) some responsible gun owners (you probably wouldn't know anything about that) brought up the need for a "graduation process". That's where I got the lingo on the OP from. They felt there was a series of requirements that should be met before obtaining a license to own guns. Responsible gun experts would determine exactly what those requirements would be. But my proposal is that there SHOULD be more requirements than there are to drive a car. And consider the fact that, to drive a car, you need to pass a theoretical test and a practical test.

But, of course, people who would not be ABLE to pass such tests would oppose them. Responsible and knowledgeable gun owners would have not problem...

Yeah, we're all familiar with the "I'm a gun owner for 70 years and own so many guns, BUT..." clowns. Most are just lying.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Yeah, we're all familiar with the "I'm a gun owner for 70 years and own so many guns, BUT..." clowns. Most are just lying.

FUDDs.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

So, you haven’t taken a proficiency test in how many years? Why not? Shouldn’t it be required?

Absolutely! ANYBODY who wants to own a gun should be required to take it. And responsible gun owners agree with me. Looks to me like the ones who don't are likely only the irresponsible ones

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Yeah, we're all familiar with the "I'm a gun owner for 70 years and own so many guns, BUT..." clowns. Most are just lying.

Exactly! Amazingly we agree! And THIS is why they shouldn't just be allowed to walk into a gun shop and walk out with an assault weapon. At the very minimum they need to PROVE that they know how to handle it safely.

 

[P_T]

Look to Illionois, it takes 3 - 4 months to send out a new set of license plates with tags.
It's just more B.S. they have to live wid. Nothing really changes except higher taxes.

It's sort of like letting people live in Florida within 30 miles and 30 feet of Sea Level. It's crazy.
Allowing anyone to live with in 30 feet of sea level anywhere is crazy.
All roads leading to them need to be closed now. .... Jets flying over homes, nada -- banned immediately.
Get them polluting sob's out of here. No one needs to fly anywhere with a smartphone, internet connection.
Its a waste of time getting to and from an airport. Close em.

 

[RF667799]

Absolutely! ANYBODY who wants to own a gun should be required to take it. And responsible gun owners agree with me. Looks to me like the ones who don't are likely only the irresponsible ones

Ad hom fallacy.

Do you have anything other than fallacies to share with us?

 

[JMB1911A1]

Absolutely! ANYBODY who wants to own a gun should be required to take it. And responsible gun owners agree with me. Looks to me like the ones who don't are likely only the irresponsible ones

We were talking about your drivers license, remember?

Why didn’t you have to take a test at every renewal. That is what you are proposing for guns.

BTW, that license is to operate on public roads, not own. The equivalent is a carry permit.

 

[RF667799]

Exactly! Amazingly we agree!

No, we don't.

And THIS is why they shouldn't just be allowed to walk into a gun shop and walk out with an assault weapon. At the very minimum they need to PROVE that they know how to handle it safely.

Is there something different involved in the safe handling of a rifle as compared to other firearms?

 

[rahl]

Thanks anyway... but I think I'll use my time to discuss with people who have a basic understanding of the English language.

You’d be better off going back to 6th grade and paying attention in civics

Courts can’t pass legislation or resolutions. They have no mechanism to do so.