Stop background checks on weapons; LICENSE the purchaser

[OutlawHoss]

I've posted in numerous threads how I feel about the entire concept of prohibited persons, but we have them and since they aren't going away anytime soon, I remember hearing an idea that wouldn't be too horrible.

Everyone has a firearm endorsement on their state issued ID. If you get convicted of a disqualifying offense or are adjudicated mentally incompetent, it gets punched. No huge bureaucracy, no registration concerns, just a quick flash of your ID and be on your way. They could enforce it the same way the liqueur control board does. Send in people with punched ID and criminal charges and fines for clerks that don't comply.

But that would be simple and like mr blonde said, not what they want. It's not about keeping prohibited persons from getting guns. It's about getting them out of the rest of our hands.

Seriously people, what don't you understand about setting precedents through measures that were presented as benign, helpful, and progressive? Do you study history at all?
Rights are self-justified, and by definition are not to be further qualified or defined, as doing so moves the right into the realm of defined by those in power, and not Natural/Inalienable/God-given.
How about we place symbols on people's clothing to show they're good citizens, which we'll remove if they behave badly?

 

[etrain16]

Why is it the conversation always comes to finding a way for US to carry additional ID to PROVE that we are allowed to exercise our constitutional rights?? Seems the answer always turns back to more government, more government, more damn government. They have enough info on me already. They have done enough damn background checks. They have more fingerprints than I can count.

Make it simple. Remove the laws, go back to the basic 2nd amendment right. Now, buy a gun and commit a crime with it, you're going to prison. Assault or kill someone with a gun, you're gone for good. Do a drive by shooting, you're off to prison for a long time, if not for good. We need to have zero tolerance for gun crime - not let frickin gang bangers back on the streets. Not let armed robbers and home invaders back on the street.

This is all f'd up and the focus is on the wrong thing - the government has been dropping the ball on crime for a long, long time now, and they point at us to try and get the focus off them.

So no. No more licenses, no tags. I'm no criminal, stay out of my business.

 

[Jim Colvill]

How about we place symbols on people's clothing to show they're good citizens, which we'll remove if they behave badly?

Been there, done that, never again.

 

[OutlawHoss]

Been there, done that, never again.
View attachment 298648

Exactly! Never Again!

 

[Member 3687]

Why is it every one wants to compromise on their rights for the false hope of safety and security because if you do then they are no longer rights there are privileges and privileges can be taken away at any time for any reason.

F-them I am tired of being treated as a Perv child molester where I need to be licensed, fingerprinted and tracked for exercising a right that the Government should not have and never should have had any control over.

Blunt objects kill more folks than all rifles combined yet we want ban ARs a small subset of all rifles because folks buy into the hype.

If you want to give up your rights more power to you it is your right but I will fight it every step by every legal means possible and then we will go from there.

I am sorry for the rant but no more compromise it is time to make a stand in my opinion.

 

[slimmer13]

Seriously people, what don't you understand about setting precedents through measures that were presented as benign, helpful, and progressive? Do you study history at all?
Rights are self-justified, and by definition are not to be further qualified or defined, as doing so moves the right into the realm of defined by those in power, and not Natural/Inalienable/God-given.
How about we place symbols on people's clothing to show they're good citizens, which we'll remove if they behave badly?

Soooo, it better to have a nics, 4473, probable record keeping by the man, ss number for every purchaser or probably get delayed, serial number recorded for every purchase, chl, handgun registration in WA, etc, etc, than a unpunched mark on your ID?

That seems like a fraction of the intrusion than we currently have. You wouldn't take a roll back on their intrusion?

But like I said, that would be a compromise from what I really want which is everyone who is walking the streets has full rights to buy whatever they want with zero government interference or approval and the only prohibited persons are locked up.

Unfortunately it is all just bs wishing. If you can't tell which way the wind is really going to blow in the next 50 years or so, you are delusional.

 

[Jim Colvill]

I'm all for gun safety. If we must have regulation, referring back to that "well regulated" portion of 2A, I would profess the need for a certificate of proficiency or something similar which would denote the owner as successfully meeting requirements of safety and marksmanship. If I'm not mistaken that was the idea behind the NRA and the CMP from the start. That might cut down on the drunken yahoos with guns you see on YouTube gun fail videos.

 

[OutlawHoss]

Soooo, it better to have a nics, 4473, probable record keeping by the man, ss number for every purchaser or probably get delayed, serial number recorded for every purchase, chl, handgun registration in WA, etc, etc, than a unpunched mark on your ID?

That seems like a fraction of the intrusion than we currently have. You wouldn't take a roll back on their intrusion?

But like I said, that would be a compromise from what I really want which is everyone who is walking the streets has full rights to buy whatever they want with zero government interference or approval and the only prohibited persons are locked up.

Unfortunately it is all just bs wishing. If you can't tell which way the wind is really going to blow in the next 50 years or so, you are delusional.

No,it's not better, and I think you know that. There is no justification to abandon natural rights in the name of security, and definitely not because a few people carry out heinous crimes. That is not the way the Constitution, due process, and the inviolability of natural born rights work. To be caught up in the illusion that there are only the two (or few) such options is to buy into the illusion and the fear mongering.

My point is I have inalienable rights, such as in the Bill of Rights, simply by being born here, and there is no further qualification, period. I lose my rights if I violate the natural rights of another, and it has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt. Any surrogate to this is unconstitutional, because it puts power over people ahead of power of the people.
Your idea may sound like a simple solution, but it would no doubt be abused.
And that is born out here and now, and in history from the most benign of beginnings and intentions.

 

[Stomper]

Been there, done that, never again.
View attachment 298648

Hence the sarcasm implied by my avatar.... and no, I'm not Jewish.

 

[albin25]

Tremors 3 (I think)
Burt Gummer speaking to 2 Gov't agents,
"You're with the Government, so why don't you guys just go back to DC
and do what you do best! Find something simple... and complicate it!!"

 

[boogerhook]

We shouldn't need any background checks or license!
It's pretty simple "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" it can't be said any simpler!!!!!
Stacy

I certainly would support this idea, if we could keep those people that should not have guns locked up for good.

 

[2A2Dend]

You may not be jewish, and nor I. But just to coin a phrase to bartering, I've been labelled by my wife several times!

 

[Ura-Ki]

Many good points here, and a reasonable question that we should look at further! I agree, what we have now is far more infringment then we should have. so how do we move forward and remove most if not all! the OP has a reasonable question that bears answering!

 

[Avogadro]

That permit to reproduce is a pet topic of my wife and I. But, whole other website (or should be…). I am proud to own my firearms and put them to legal use. I am also becoming more aware of what that means when talking to others who may or may not share my convictions. Often the knee-jerk response is in line with the media or fear and ignorance.

I am picking up on a couple of things:
Most gun owners I know are legal law abiding citizens.
Most gun relate crime is NOT by the hand of those citizens.
The average NON-owner is too scared of any gun owner to engage in unemotional discussion.

Would those of you more experienced than I expand on these thoughts?

 

[Stomper]

I can expand on it by condensing it... you're fighting against "groupthink".

 

[IheartSig]

Good ideas, it's not a bad thing to consider ideas. The more that you guys thump your chest and scream "2nd amendment" and refuse to engage, the more likely it is that we will eventually see a ratification to that amendment.

Like it or not, gun owners are going to have to sit down at the table and engage in rational discussions and considerations. You better start coming up with more arguments beyond "2nd amendments" too, or you will be left out of the discussions entirely.

 

[Ura-Ki]

That's what I think its going to take! Too much bravado and No compromise hasn't worked so far, and I don't see it changing! This idea the OP has does have merits and I think it should be looked at as a possable work around where we win, and they get something that makes sense! Deep down, I think we are all tired of this over the top argument for the 2nd, but reather then say No Backing down, willing to fight to the death, lets have intelligent conversation about this in a way where all parties get something they can take away as a win! And the best part is, If we work together to make something like work and can sell it to the other side, we get out rights back, they get laws that actually work and make sense, and were all happy!

 

[No_Regerts]

Where does it stop? If the Bill of Rights is compromised, we no longer have rights. Due process already exists for situations where someone's rights become limited.

 

[erudne]

Once started, the lose of liberty never ends except by force of will!

 

[Ura-Ki]

I don't think compromise in this case will hurt us, especially with what we have right now, we have a chance to do something that benefits us all with out gutting or changing or limiting any of the 2nd or our rights to use them! Take the long view and look at it with out automatically judging it as anti 2nd!!! instead look at it as a possable way to shore up our 2nd rights while getting them all back, and insuring they can never be challenged by any one ever again, isn't that worth looking at, isn't that what having the 2nd is all about? This is a way to fight fire with fire, and if we do it right, we have won back every thing we itch about now!