1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

For your consideration

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by DammitBoy, Nov 23, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Mar 19, 2009
    Atlanta, GA
    I post at several forums, this being the only firearm forum I belong to. At some of these other social networks there are gun sub-forums.

    One of these, with a 50% mix of europeans, 30% americans, and the rest mostly canadians, australians, and folks in the middle east. It's a computer game forum. They have a gun owners thread there, where we can discuss firearms, share pictures, and talk about shooting, hunting, and collecting.

    That sub-forum has a rule about no gun ownership debates, and there is a sizeable anti-gun crowd on that forum. The nice thing has been to see people not exposed to gun culture before, getting a chance to see it outside of heated debate and fear mongering. There are at least a dozen converts there from the last couple of years and that's satisfying to participate in - when you get to see newbs with their first gun.

    Another thread was started recently, in a debate forum there, that asked what gun owners would like to see and would feel positive about that would reform current gun laws in the USA.

    Here is the proposal posited there:

    (NOT my proposal, just reposting it here for discussion)

    My question is - should I get involved in that debate about his proposal? If I do respond, what do you think I should say? What do you think? Do you have any constructive criticisms to add?

    Keeping in mind that I believe there are still plenty of fence-sitters in this very large group...
  2. mmitch

    mmitch Member

    Dec 26, 2010
    I would resist any "nationalization" of the process. The point being: do nothing to increase the size or scope of the federal government.

  3. Cluster Bomb

    Cluster Bomb Member

    Jul 3, 2011
    The gov has no right to regulate firearms. just like it has no right to regulate religion or free speech.
  4. M-Cameron

    M-Cameron member

    Oct 6, 2009
    ......what is the purpose of the 'national ID card' ?

    what does it do differently that other forms of ID( drivers license, passport, ect.) dont already do?
  5. wojownik

    wojownik Member

    May 15, 2009
    The proposal would seem to a step in the opposite direction of the the right to keep and bear arms as an Individual Right - i.e. a fundamental right - in the Second Amendment.

    I suspect the individual floating that idea is having a hard time coming to grips with the idea that the RKBA is a fundamental right, rather than a derivative right. That is, it is the possession of the national ID card that would would be the source of the right, and this would move the ball backwards away from the RKBA as an underlying fundamental right.

    It's kind of like the author of the proposal is willing to make a very big trade off -- by watering down an Individual Right (making it derivative to holding a little ID card), in exchange for getting some concessions on a few specific things like regulation on silencers.

    A fundamental right is a fundamental right. Think about the implications if the proposal was to issue a National ID card, issuance of which would grant the holder due process of law, or freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc. No, in the context of what an individual fundamental right actually is, the idea of a National ID card is fairly noxious.
  6. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Mar 19, 2009
    Atlanta, GA
    I don't think this guy believes the card is the source of the right, but simply representative of that fundamental right. What are concealed carry permits? Why do states use those?

    I suspect I'm going to hear a lot of "What's the difference with how gun rights are already restricted and regulated?"

    Cluster - a lot of folks would say government regulates the crap out of religion and free speech.

    I'm not sure what I think about the concept, but I have been contemplating what those changes would do to the gun community. I'm still looking for advice on how to discuss this there - without coming across too heavy handed or condescending.
  7. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    May 27, 2007
    How about a government issued card for people wishing to participate in organized religion, speak publicly about politics, possess a newspaper or a Bible?

    Sounds like a bad idea doesn't it? So does this. You should not have to prove your worthiness to exercise a constitutionally enumerated right.
  8. Kendahl

    Kendahl Member

    Apr 7, 2012
    I object to 11, 12, 14 and 15.

    11: Murder and insider stock trading are both felonies. One is violent, the other isn't. The stock trader isn't likely to maim or kill anyone.

    12: Legal permanent residents (green card) already have undergone a more stringent background check than is required to purchase a firearm. In many states, they are eligible for concealed carry permits.

    14: Most mentally ill are not dangerous except, perhaps, to themselves. The few that are dangerous need to remain in secure psychiatric hospitals until it is certain that they are cured. (A permanent cure is unlikely.)

    15: No need for additional regulations.

    Otherwise, my only reservation is that this be shall issue to anyone who qualifies.

    Of course, denial of a permit won't stop someone from acting out evil intentions. Timothy McVeigh murdered a lot of people without shooting them.
  9. Impureclient

    Impureclient Member

    Dec 30, 2008
    I'll get poopooed on but if if I had to have some dumb card (#1)to get # 2-15, then I' have to go with it.
    We already are all carded up anyway. Drivers license, birth certificate, passport, CCW card, SAMSclub...it's all the same thing. Besides if you can get qualified to carry concealed, then you are already there. Who would fight this, felons?
    The only people I can see having a real problem with this are ones who don't jump through hoops to be allowed to carry in their State. For those of us who do/did, we already had to get fingerprinted, checked and do a safety course.
    I'd go with this just because of the silencer and barrel length thing alone. All in all it is not a step backwards from the point of #1 vs #2-15

    Missed this: #11. Conviction of a VIOLENT felony revokes one's right to bear this card. & #12 should be same as a conceal permit, if they can retain a green card and pass CCW permit, then they should be good to go.
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2012
  10. hardheart

    hardheart Member

    Apr 15, 2004
    What constitutes proving worthiness? Should age, citizenship, or legal standing be checked before selling someone a firearm? I'm old enough, a US citizen, and not a felon, so I don't care either way. The underage illegal alien with a string of violent crimes is going to have a gun either way, so I don't suppose it matters to me if they bought it in Wal-Mart or an alley, just wondering.
  11. Twiki357

    Twiki357 Member

    Jan 26, 2011
    Prescott Valley, AZ
    I would support numbers 5,6,7, 9 and 15. No way on the rest.

    Although, numbers 1 and 2 "Could" be tolerable IF they preempted ALL state laws and were on a "Shall issue" basis, but it will never happen. The Federal Government could not preempt the states rights without a Constitutional amendment that would have to include a reaffirmation of the Second Amendment and none of the states would forfeit their rights by approving it.
  12. MistWolf

    MistWolf Member

    Aug 17, 2005
    Our rights are guaranteed to us by our creator, not any government. We do no give any of our rights away to anyone, or we will end up giving them all away.

    Let's try applying this same logic to another right- freedom of speech

    1. A National ID Card issued to any law-abiding citizen that passes a background check and a safety qualification course.

    2. The bearer will be able to post on internet forums except where barred by Federal Law.

    3. The bearer will be able to buy any discussion in any state of the Union without additional backgrounds checks upon presentation of the National ID Card.

    4. The bearer will be able to transport literature anywhere within the United States, following standard shipping safety practices.

    5. Content will no longer be subject to government regulation

    6. Religion will no longer be subject to government regulation.

    7. Server capacity will no longer be subject to government regulation.

    8. The manufacture date of a computer will no longer be subject to government regulation.

    9. Cosmetic features of a website will not be subject to government regulation.

    10. All fees collected to issue said Card will be used to help fund a national program to teach children safe religion.

    11. Conviction of a felony revokes one's right to bear this card.

    12. Citizenship is required to bear this card.

    13. The bearer of this card has the right to possession of a firearm in U.S. and International waters.

    14. The involuntary commitment to a mental health facility revokes ones right to bear this card.

    15. No new regulations may be added regarding firearms except by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate.

    Individuals who do no qualify for, or have been had their Natioanal ID card revoked, forfeit their 1st Amendment rights. A new federal agency will be established for the issuance of the National ID card. This new agency will set card fees, testing standards and perform needed background checks.

    As you can see, there are some good things, but all it takes is to revoke or simply refuse to issue the NatID at the slightest excuse to take away one's rights
  13. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Jun 18, 2011
    The only Federal law we need concerning firearms is the one we got first. All the rest are unconstitutional.
  14. jacob2745

    jacob2745 Member

    Jan 12, 2012
    i believe the author of this list may have intended the id card do away with the state by state issued carry permits. One card and you can carry wherever you please in the U.S.
  15. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    May 2, 2012
    The Texas Hill Country
    NO. The power to issue a permit implies the power to DENY one.

    Read your 9th and 10th amendments. Just because a right of the people isn't enumerated does not mean it isn't a right of the people, BUT a power not specifically granted to the federal government is DENIED TO IT, reserved to the states or the people.

    The federal government has NO Constitutional authority to regulate firearms possession at a national level - NONE. Show me where the Constitution grants it that power.

    The 2nd amendment is clear indication that our Founders feared precisely this.
  16. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Nov 13, 2008
    You could say that about the freedom of speech, but real life didn't work out that way.

    Sent using Tapatalk 2
  17. backbencher

    backbencher Member

    Dec 13, 2005
    15 would require a Constitutional Amendment. I think I prefer the 2nd Amendment to what is proposed. The seeds of destruction of '34 are found in the SCOTUS decision upholding it.
  18. blarby

    blarby Member

    Feb 25, 2011
    Calapooia Oregon
    Other than to say the whole thing reeks, I'd say no.

    Good. Seek them out and counsel them.
  19. medalguy

    medalguy Member

    Mar 20, 2009
    New Mexico
    Well, I seem to recall another sort of discussion a few years ago. Here are a few lines from that one:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    No card needed.
  20. marv

    marv Member

    Apr 2, 2006
    South coast of Indiana
    Illinois already has #1, their F O I D Firearm Owner's Identification Card, but they don't have any of the others.
  21. Walter

    Walter Member

    Dec 30, 2004
    I agree with the sentiment, and the concept, but, IMHO, it just ain't happening that way. Example: To buy a new gun, you must go to a Federally licensed
    firearms dealer. You must fill out a Federally mandated "yellow sheet" form.
    And that's just the start of it. To paraphrase an old axiom, the camel's nose is already in the tent.

    I certainly don't like the idea of a national I.D. card for firearms ownership, but,
    and again, IMHO, the premise the OP put forward would streamline the process, do away with many idiotic state laws, and simplify the law to the extreme.

    Unconstitutional as all those other laws may be, they are still being enforced by fed, state and local LEOs. I wonder if the idea of being "vetted" by one agency for all firearms activities, nationwide, for life, is such a bad idea.

    Just a thought...

  22. Plan2Live

    Plan2Live Member

    May 17, 2011
    Columbia, SC
    My curiousity runs in a different direction. The OP mentions the Gaming Forum and says there are many anti-gun folks there. Do the games themselves feature firearms? If so, why are the anti-gunners playing the game? Seems contradictory.
  23. PRM

    PRM Member

    Apr 14, 2008
    Nutts... Nothing but fancy window dressing. For the card to be viable a data base would have to exist identifying who has guns, where they live... and is nothing more than backdoor registration. If the government ever wanted to confiscate them - knowing where to go, and who has them is not a list I would want to be on.
  24. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Aug 29, 2008
    I chuckle at those who say no to anything that infringes our 2nd amendment right but then go an renew their CCW license when it expires. Our RKBA has already been stepped on by every state government except Vermont. Get off the soapboxes where you say NO to regulation when regulation is already in place. Some states have terrible gun laws (IL, CA, MA, etc). Some have gun laws that are user friendly. I can't drive from my home, where I am legally licensed, to visit my girl with my pistol because she lives over the border. I can't carry while I drive for work because my territory covers 6 states. If a national CCW card allowed every one of us to carry anywhere then count me in. We already have this very process in most of the states. I don't get how someone can state so righteously that he opposes a national registration to carry but pays the fee to carry locally. Double standards, if you ask me.

    I just jumped thru the hoops to get my CCW where I live. It includes a national FBI check and fingerprints as well as a sanctionel course. What more could a license to carry federally involve? What rights are we giving up that aren't already taken? If this card gave me the right to carry in any state I wanted, I would be very happy. No, I am not happy I had to go thru the process to start with but if I want to carry it's what I have to do. We're already regulated.
  25. highlander 5

    highlander 5 Member

    Sep 15, 2006
    Anything that requires a fee worrys me. Example We here in Ma have to get an FID card or LTC. Fids were $2 and good for life,LTC were $25 and good for 5 years. Well the laws and fees were changed,no more life time FIDs for $2 they are $25 and good for 6 years and LTC have gone up to $100 for the same period. The Feds could pass a national ID card then slowly increase the fees till no one but the likes of Bloomberg,Trump or Bill gates could afford to own firearms.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page