An idea that can make everyone safer; please hear me out!

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

XDn00b101

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
68
I'm from Cali, and I keep reading about gun control issues. Now it got me thinking and I came up an idea, which IMO I think could be a really good policy that everyone can agree on. Just hear me out please...

Now my idea is about insuring legal Firearm purchasers are not going to get into any kind of criminal mischief, the person is responsible, doesn't have any kind of mental, or emotional distress, which can lead to a major mishap. The idea is to get the firearm purchaser to have 3 people cosign on their behalf. Basically Vogue for the person who purchases the Firearm. The 3 people must be at least 21 years of age, and have no criminal record. Now I've seen a lot of the regs here talk about the idiots and the crazies they've crossed paths with at the gun store, and honestly I bet this would put their minds a little bit more at ease the next time they see someone purchase a Firearm. Well guys I hope you consider my idea, and I'd like some feedback!:)
 
my idea is about insuring legal Firearm purchasers are not going to get into any kind of criminal mischief
Click to expand...
Circular logic - you can't have it both ways. Either I'm legal or I'm not. If I'm not legal, I don't get to play. But if I'm legal, then I get a firearm.

No offense, but it sounds like just another expression of 'thought crime' games..... Nobody, not even the three people that you would have vouch for my good name, can tell what the future holds.

As my mutual fund says - past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
 
That's true. No one can see into the future. Also, if you're not a Felon, then you have every right to get a firearm. But think about it this way. Would a freind, or family member let that person who has mental issues, or some kind of problem get a firearm? I'd say no.
 
Why on earth would insuring firearms owners after they get 3 people to vouchsafe them make anyone any safer? I believe your premise is faulty.
So 3 people say John Doe is a good honest careful person? That's just their opinion, to begin with, and if their friends, they're likely prejudiced anyway. I don't see how that would alter any of the probabilities of some kind of accident happening.

I bet this would put their minds a little bit more at ease the next time they see someone purchase a Firearm.
Click to expand...

Are you saying they need to be insured to purchase a firearm? No way; the right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilige.
I don't mean to pick on Californians, but a LOT of screwy loonie left wing commie ideas come from the politicians out there. I realize that there's also a lot of good people outside of the major cities who aren't as whacky-lefty and who value firearms rights, and they're hurting 'cause of all the whacky stuff. I'm sorry to say it, but I think your idea is just more of that.
 
No offense but I think that is the worst idea I have ever heard. "The right of the people who have three cosigners to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?":barf:
 
Would a freind, or family member let that person who has mental issues, or some kind of problem get a firearm? I'd say no.
Click to expand...
Which implies that my ability to defend and preserve my corporeal existance is subject to the emotional whims of others. "Hmm, my BroInLaw is mad at me, so I better ask my uncle and his beer drinkin' buddy..."

How does that sound like a good idea again?
 
Like all gun control laws, 'taint constitutional. Beyond that, it isn't right.

Like most gun control laws, it would not achieve what it hopes to achieve.

And, like most gun control laws, it would do far more harm to the innocent than to the guilty.

Need more reasons?
 
http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-constitution#after_ad1 said:
According to Article VI of the Constitution, the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land." All other laws and judicial decisions are subject to its mandates. The Constitution therefore has higher authority than all other laws in the nation, including statutes and laws passed by Congress and state legislatures. Unlike those other laws, the Constitution may be changed, or amended, only in special ways that reflect its character as a demonstration of the people's will.
Click to expand...
US Constitution said:
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Click to expand...

also

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

As I read it not only is your idea without real merit, but the laws to which you offer an appeasment are blatently counter to the spirit of the federal Constitution, and should have been overturned long ago. Please don't take this as a flame, as I realize that your intentions are in all likelyhood genuine - they are just (in my opinion) counter productive to our ever regaining our lost freedom and liberty.

Now to pose a different approach - If we as a country paid 1/2 as much attention to the education required to exercise our rights as we do to exercise some of our privel
Vibe(on a different forum) said:
Rights vs Privileges in educational priorities

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/...er_s_education


[Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer Sat Aug 19, 12:30 PM ET]



WASHINGTON - When Wayne Bottlick wanted to learn to drive, his dad took him to an empty parking lot, buried the car in a snow bank and made his son a deal.

You want to drive? Get behind the wheel and get us out.

The car didn't stay stuck long, but the lesson did. Bottlick ended up learning more about driving from his dad than from his high school course. Now his own oldest son is driving age
<more at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/...er_s_education >
Click to expand...

Great approach...but my question is this why is there not MORE emphasis on getting the same or better education toward safe firearm use? Why should the safe exercise of a privilege rate so much MORE attention than the safe exercise of a RIGHT?[/quote]
 
People with mental issues can't legally purchase a firearm, so how would this provide anything extra. Add to that the fact that I can get alot of people to sign anything for $20 and the idea is a wash.
 
Not the dumbest idea, really, when you consider things like "microstamping" or even the silly "leave a casing with the Police" mess....

However, like these others, once you think about it intelligently, a major hole appears:

There is simply no way to predict the actions of any individual, regardless of "certification" at any future time beyond right now.

A Police Officer, with his impeccable certification and Zen-like mastery of all things firearms, may "go postal" when the phone rings.... Doesn't matter if half of Poland signs off on him....

Not to mention (well, others have above) the ease with which three "signers" could be obtained by those who's intent is less pure.

The only thing that any of this "testing" is going to show is that the individual's record is clean, now....

(A good friend of mine - and a former FBI agent - swallowed his gun when diagnosed with Cancer.... Predictable? He was honorably retired after many years of service....)

Here in OH, btw, the Sheriff of your County, or an adjacent one, "officially" makes the determination if you get a CHL. Can't really get a "better" signer than that.... (Must be of some value - the criminal-friendly folks are getting upset because the number of license revocations is almost negligible and the Sheriff's aren't required to pass along the reasons.)

Just IMHO, of course....

Regards,
 
That is a requirement for CCW licenses here. It is rediculous. They don't want relatives acting as references because they would lie for us. How do they figure a non-relative knows anyone good enough to vouch for them? The only people I could get as a reference were ones who did not agree with the law. It felt like they did it out of sympathy for me. No others are willing to assume the liability.

How many will you sign for? I would not sign even for myself. You are talking about ending gun ownership in your state.
 
I haven't been able to get a pistol permit in my county because of a requirement like that (4 references). I only moved here recently and I don't know a lot of people (the references have to live in the county), let alone people I'd want to ask to be a reference. It sucks.
 
People are easily fooled.

How many times have you heard a story about people living secret lives. Men married to multiple women, without any of them knowing about each other, etc. If you can know someone intimately for years, and live with them and not have significant knowledge of their true selves, how can you ever expect to have any truly "able" to couch for someone else, and attach some significance to it?

Sometimes sick people are very good liars. There are multiple cases of serial killers where the neighbors all proclaimed shock at the crime, and spoke of how nice the killer was. Is it possible that these same neighbors would have had no issues cosigning?

Besides, I don't need cosigners to buy a car, and those kill WAY more people. I don't need cosigners to take a walk in the park, or publish my thoughts anonymously on the internet. Why should I need cosigners to exercise my freedoms... any of them?

~Icarus
 
The biggest problem isn't that you can't predict someone's future. The biggest problem is that people who go into gunstores and legally buy firearms aren't the ones commiting crimes in the first place. Ensuring legal gun buyers are double, super, legal and vouched for won't keep the crack head from stealing that gun and selling it to a gangbanger a week after it is bought.
 
XDn00b101 said:
Would a freind, or family member let that person who has mental issues, or some kind of problem get a firearm? I'd say no.
Click to expand...


Define "mental issues" - the law defines it as "having been committed to an institution for treatment against your will". You tick 3 or 4 of your craziest relatives off and THEY have you committed - you can be the sanest one in the group, or state for that matter, and STILL lose your 2nd amendment rights, because having the Dr.'s certify that you were NOT indeed "crazy" does NOT counter the FACT that you were "at one time" committed for treatment against your will. And guess who has the job of reinstating your firearm rights- The BATFE - and they will not do it. Why? because they don't have a budget for doing it, and the Supreme court (it seems) has ruled that this is not an infringement to you right to redress of grievances. BS. Good luck getting the Governor or President to help, I'm not sure you even CAN get "pardoned" from an improper commitment.
 
Hmmm...so you'd require an abused wife, who had been isolated from any friends and family for years before escaping with her children have to dredge up 3 people to vouch for her, before she could get a gun to defend herself?

You'd have the elderly woman, whose friends were all dead and gone, have to find people?

You'd force everyday Joe Normal to disclose his state of being armed to 3 people, none of whose business it is?

Nope, I think not.

Just because it feels good to you doesn't mean that it achieves anything, or is a good idea.
 
3 peop;e with no criminal record. How are you going to verify that? I guess though, if you are attempting to purchase a gun illegally, you would certainly have 3 upstanding citizens testify that you were a good doobie.
 
3 peop;e with no criminal record. How are you going to verify that? I guess though, if you are attempting to purchase a gun illegally, you would certainly have 3 upstanding citizens testify that you were a good doobie.
Click to expand...
It's easy! You could just 3 people each, to verify that each one of them is an upstanding citizen!
Then 3 people for each one of those...
Then 3 people for each one of those...
Then 3 people for each one of those...

Eventually, you'd have everyone in the country ensuring you are responsible enough to own a gun!
 
If you take the number of people who legally possess a gun and kill one or more people it doesn't even scratch the surface of the number of murders that occur, crazy or not. The vast majority of murders are committed by perfectly sane people that kill someone very deliberately and do not possess the gun legally.

All you are doing is add more red tape for those that aren't a threat in the first place. No one can predict someone else's future mental state or snap behavior.
 
Most gun crime is committed by people who purchased outside the legal channels. The people affected by your proposal arent hurting anyone in the first place, which is why these ideas never reduce gun violence.

Making me jump through extra hoops wont affect Tyrone the Crackhead because he doesnt buy his guns in Gun World, he buys them from Cletus the Gunrunner. Cletus doesnt make him jump through hoops or run background checks and Cletus sure as hell doesnt fill out 4473s or a bound book. It's anyone's guess where Cletus is misappropriating them- legit owners and FFLs breaking the law, corrupt police departments, gang members in the military, foreign smugglers, garage workshop machinists? Possible sources abound.

Also, your idea suffers from the problem of trying to predict the future, which is still impossible despite any attempts to legislature to the contrary.
 
XDn00b101,

You can't possibly be a gun rights activist. Especially being from Mexifornia, you should know better.

Let's say your proposal were enacted. That would never be the end of it. Three references would become four or five, or you'd need approval from your doctor or a psychologist, or a requirement to take a mental fitness exam, or negative comments from your neighbors could be taken into consideration, or "applications" would be subject to approval by local law enforcement. The possibilities are endless once you open the door...
 
i have an idea in my head. this thead needs deleted before the antis read it and next week have a bill made about having cosigners.

all this would do is, number 1- increase the illegal sales of firearms, and number 2- make it harder for legal law abiding citizens to buy firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Need explanation of Straw Sales
Replies
10
Views
746
nvshooter
N
A
  • Locked
Statewide hearings in Pennsylvania
Replies
0
Views
305
alan
A
G
  • Locked
(OR) Trespass law with a Firearm: HELP!
Replies
4
Views
538
Gray Peterson
G
O
  • Locked
Idea to Shut Up the Gun Bigots
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
TheBluesMan
T
S
  • Locked
A survey, please help out
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
buttrap
B
Back
Top