One person's gun control plan

[11B10]

This was from my local paper. I deleted the person's name. By their sarcasm and incorrect terminology, they're obviously not a gun person.






Five ways owning a gun should be similar to owning a car

I have accepted the fact that the 2nd Amendment is never going to go away, and I may as well try talking to a wall (a blank wall with bullet holes in it) convincing our Legislators to ban assault weapons of any kind. So let’s play the hand we are dealt. If we are going to have weapons, let’s treat them like the vehicles we drive.

You have to pass a test to drive a car. That license is good for all states. The same rule should be applied to owning a weapon.
A car registration is usually updated every year and so should a weapon.
A car must be insured and so should a weapon.
A driver’s license must be renewed every year or every couple of years, and so should a weapon.
You have to have a license marked if you are driving a commercial vehicle or a motorcycle. The type of weapon you own should be noted on your license.
Paying for license, registration and insurance of a weapon on a regular basis would increase revenue and make me and others feel a little safer.

Now, a lot of people may think that these new rules are just trying to keep them from owning a gun, or to put it bluntly, weapon suppression.

Perhaps they can understand what it is like for a lot of voters.

[RJ]

I'm not sure why "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand.

[jh9]

What feedback? It's written by someone who wants "assault weapons" to "go away". So since they can't have that (which they've clearly stated is the preferred outcome) they want to "discuss" an intentionally burdensome licensing scheme. One, btw, that isn't even intended to reduce the body count but is rather some sort of quid pro quo for voter suppression laws. There is no response to that. And since the paper published it in the first place, they're probably going to pick one rebuttal to print. And it will be the one that gets the biggest response, not the one that makes the most persuasive argument.

They published it because it will draw responses and "drive engagement". Not because they're trying to facilitate some sort of productive dialog. They want people basically shouting at each other so more people will be exposed to their ads.

Wad it up. Throw it in the trash. Written responses to a dead tree newspaper in 2021 is even less productive than slamming your dick in the door.

[HCountyGuy]

The comparison of firearms and vehicles is always amusing. I like it because when someone starts making comparisons I giddily jump on board because in some ways it would make life for us firearms owners easier.

I made a social media post regarding such suggestions before:



My favorite ignorant "solution" being proposed by the uninformed is to regulate firearms like we regulate cars. Testing to ensure one can operate the car with a basic level of competency, registration and insurance requirements. What the people offering this solution don't realize is that to implement this would be to loosen gun regulations.

For instance, in order to purchase a firearm one cannot be convicted of any felony or even a misdemeanor in regards to domestic violence. Last time I went to buy a car, they never checked against that (at least that I know of).

Other restrictions include being an unlawful user of drugs, being a fugitive from justice and having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. No car dealership I know of would halt your buying process for any of those reasons, and to my knowledge don't care. They check your credit if you require a loan, check to see if you have a license and have an insurance requirement. After those comparatively minor requirements are met, you're golden to take home your new wheels.

As for licensing, driving tests are relatively simple and test the applicant on extremely basic operating functions. If you pass and pay the license fee, you're good to go THAT DAY. Oh and the license is good for an array of vehicles from vans to sports cars and even better it’s good for ALL 50 STATES.

For a license to carry a firearm, the restrictions vary based on where you live. In some jurisdictions, you simply need to pass a background check. Others require a lengthy process where the applicant must demonstrate a just cause for needing a license. Oh, and usually "self-defense" is not enough on its own.

The application review process can take anywhere from six months to well over a year. A year just to carry something you legally acquired. And if the issuing authority deems your reasons insufficient, they can deny your permit.

So would you be okay with not being able to drive your vehicle after a year of essentially waiting for permission? Likely by that point you'd be out of whatever job you were working unless you car-pooled or took public transportation.

Next, you have certain capacity restrictions or safety features implemented in firearms supposed to make them safer. So what about restricting cars in a similar fashion, where you can't have a car beyond a certain size/passenger capacity and some safety features that really don't do much?

As I stated in the beginning, I may not have a feasible solution to curtail these incidents but please think your solutions through before suggesting them.

For the record, I'm not in favor of any more gun regulations. Criminals, by definition, ignore the laws in place to carry out their misdeeds. Laws affect only those who respect them and are not inclined to carry out these heinous acts.

[ccmdfd]

/\ /\ /\

I like your responses. I'm going to have to borrow some of those next time someone tries to get me into that argument.

To the person who wrote the letter to the local newspaper I would have to ask; are there really States out there where you have to renew your drivers license every year or two? If so, I'm staying in North Carolina for my entire life. we get it for five years and the renewal is now super easy with less and less testing.

[blues]

To the person who wrote the letter to the local newspaper I would have to ask; are there really States out there where you have to renew your drivers license every year or two? If so, I'm staying in North Carolina for my entire life. we get it for five years and the renewal is now super easy with less and less testing.

It was eight years...

I renewed my NC license in 2012 and again in 2020. But because I just renewed online, and am over 65, when I have to renew in 5 years, I'll have to go into the DMV office instead of doing it the easy way online.

Reminds me, I have to renew my CCH this fall. A month or two after my next LEOSA qual.

[ccmdfd]

It was eight years...

I renewed my NC license in 2012 and again in 2020. But because I just renewed online, and am over 65, when I have to renew in 5 years, I'll have to go into the DMV office instead of doing it the easy way online.

Reminds me, I have to renew my CCH this fall. A month or two after my next LEOSA qual.

And if you renew in person next time, is it still 5 years or 8 and you have to renew the time after in person or online?

Hate to admit I'm not super up-to-date on my own State's laws, but they have changed so many times since I was 16.

And here I go participating in thread drift yet again.

[blues]

And if you renew in person next time, is it still 5 years or 8 and you have to renew the time after in person or online?

Hate to admit I'm not super up-to-date on my own State's laws, but they have changed so many times since I was 16.

And here I go participating in thread drift yet again.

Age 65+ is good for 5 years.

You can only renew online every other time as far as I understand the rules. It will be good for either 8 or 5 years depending on age.

[JohnO]

make me and others feel a little safer.


The magic words were uttered! The all important FEELINGS. Sorry sir your feelings do not trump our RIGHTS!

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41WJ4jlftwL._AC_.jpg

[LOKNLOD]

This isn't a plan, this is someone stupid copy-pasting a dated "snarky funny" into a letter to the editor. I'm pretty sure I saw that as a forwarded chain email in '98.

[okie john]

If we’re going to equate the ownership of cars and guns, then

Using a vehicle in a crime will add 10 years to your sentence but will be the first charge thrown out in a plea bargain.
No gas tank will hold over 10 gallons and the most common one won’t be reliable.
Imports of cheap fuel from certain countries will be banned.
Only the military and police will own vehicles with automatic transmissions or that seat more than four people.
You won’t be able to operate a vehicle within 100 yards of a school.
The most interesting models won’t be available in California or Massachusetts.
A muffler will cost $1,500 and require a $200 tax stamp plus a one-year wait for paperwork.
California vehicle owners will need three people to unscrew a gas cap.
Fuel will be impossible to find in the run up to a presidential election.
The DMV will be staffed by neckbeards.

Welcome to our world, motherfuckers.


Okie John

[ccmdfd]

The DMV will be staffed by neckbeards.


Okie John

Thought that was already the case.

Someone should take that list and write a letter to the paper with that report to the original post.

[joshs]

These comparisons come out pretty frequently, they aren't all that well thought out from the gun control perspective.

You don't need a license to buy a car or to use it on private land.
Interstate private transactions in cars have essentially no government involvement.
A shall-issue license to use a car on public roads is available to nearly anyone of age, and is generally valid in every state.
Registration is also only for cars that are going to be used on public roads.
There are essentially zero restrictions for the type of vehicles you can own to use off of public roads.

I don't think those in favor of gun control really want that system for guns.

[SeriousStudent]

And if you renew in person next time, is it still 5 years or 8 and you have to renew the time after in person or online?

Hate to admit I'm not super up-to-date on my own State's laws, but they have changed so many times since I was 16.

And here I go participating in thread drift yet again.

I take a CHL/LTC class every September after the Texas Legislature meets. The laws they pass almost always go into effect on September 1 of the calendar year in which they are signed by the Governor into law.

I pick a different instructor every year. This accomplished three things:

1 - I get to audit that instructor's teaching, and hopefully pick up new techniques or ideas. I also know who to recommend to new shooters, or avoid.

2 - I have a written record on file with the state, passing the latest written test with the latest laws, showing legal awareness.

3 - I take the shooting test one-handed with a J-frame, weak-hand only. That's the most difficult pistol to shoot that I carry for self-defense. I'm running it under sub-optimal conditions. I pass the shooting test, and that's on file. Texas only records a pass/fail, but if I shoot less than 100 perfect, I am disappoint.

So if I have to use my LTT Beretta 92X with both hands, competency has been legally demonstrated under more difficult circumstance.

The class is usually under $75, and therefore very cheap insurance.

[Stephanie B]

This was from my local paper. I deleted the person's name. By their sarcasm and incorrect terminology, they're obviously not a gun person.






Five ways owning a gun should be similar to owning a car

I have accepted the fact that the 2nd Amendment is never going to go away, and I may as well try talking to a wall (a blank wall with bullet holes in it) convincing our Legislators to ban assault weapons of any kind. So let’s play the hand we are dealt. If we are going to have weapons, let’s treat them like the vehicles we drive.

You have to pass a test to drive a car. That license is good for all states. The same rule should be applied to owning a weapon.
A car registration is usually updated every year and so should a weapon.
A car must be insured and so should a weapon.
A driver’s license must be renewed every year or every couple of years, and so should a weapon.
You have to have a license marked if you are driving a commercial vehicle or a motorcycle. The type of weapon you own should be noted on your license.
Paying for license, registration and insurance of a weapon on a regular basis would increase revenue and make me and others feel a little safer.

Now, a lot of people may think that these new rules are just trying to keep them from owning a gun, or to put it bluntly, weapon suppression.

Perhaps they can understand what it is like for a lot of voters.

Ask them to please show us in the Constitution where it says that they have the right to drive or to own a car.

They can't. Courts have been pretty clear about this-- driving is a privilege, not a right.

[idahojess]

This isn't a plan, this is someone stupid copy-pasting a dated "snarky funny" into a letter to the editor. I'm pretty sure I saw that as a forwarded chain email in '98.

In today's Twitter/Facebook emotion-filled style of communication, those dumb forwarded chain e-mails from the late 90's now sound like rational, well-thought out treatises.

I was thinking that today while I was -- oh --- ....

Yeah!!!

"Ow my Balls!" is on! Sweet!!

[pangloss]

This topic seems appropriate for the politics sub-forum...

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

[alamo5000]

This was from my local paper. I deleted the person's name. By their sarcasm and incorrect terminology, they're obviously not a gun person.






Five ways owning a gun should be similar to owning a car

I have accepted the fact that the 2nd Amendment is never going to go away, and I may as well try talking to a wall (a blank wall with bullet holes in it) convincing our Legislators to ban assault weapons of any kind. So let’s play the hand we are dealt. If we are going to have weapons, let’s treat them like the vehicles we drive.

You have to pass a test to drive a car. That license is good for all states. The same rule should be applied to owning a weapon.
A car registration is usually updated every year and so should a weapon.
A car must be insured and so should a weapon.
A driver’s license must be renewed every year or every couple of years, and so should a weapon.
You have to have a license marked if you are driving a commercial vehicle or a motorcycle. The type of weapon you own should be noted on your license.
Paying for license, registration and insurance of a weapon on a regular basis would increase revenue and make me and others feel a little safer.

Now, a lot of people may think that these new rules are just trying to keep them from owning a gun, or to put it bluntly, weapon suppression.

Perhaps they can understand what it is like for a lot of voters.

I have a better suggestion. Firearms laws should mimic voting laws. Firearms and voting are equal among rights.

[Greg]

The author of that “article” and his feeewings can eat a giant bowl of dicks.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Years ago, Al Gore proposed the car analogy and it was discussed in the NY Times. So I wrote a letter to the editor that said in NY state and city it was very difficult to get a handgun (depends on county but still a major hassle in most of the state at the time). I said that any law abiding citizen can buy a car very quickly with no statement of purpose, references, etc. Thus, would the NYS laws change such that a law abiding citizen in NYS can go to a dealer and buy a handgun with the same lesser degree of hassle?

That would be a major freeing up of the state. Well, I got an email saying they would publish the letter from a lesser editor. However, they never did. I assume a higher up pal of Al decided not to.

In very restrictive areas then, the car analogy would have been an improvement - haha.

[Trooper224]

There's a direct correlation between guns and cars. You have many criminals using guns without any thought towards permits, licensing and legal use. You also have many people operating cars without any thought towards permits, licensing and legal use.

Sounds great.

[willie]

I have heard that federal prosecutors drop firearm charges because of mandatory sentencing rules. There is a desire to reduce prison populations--especially the number of incarcerated minority persons. Hence I doubt if we will see gun crimes adding to prison populations.

[WobblyPossum]

I have heard that federal prosecutors drop firearm charges because of mandatory sentencing rules. There is a desire to reduce prison populations--especially the number of incarcerated minority persons. Hence I doubt if we will see gun crimes adding to prison populations.

Sometimes. I’ve seen 18 USC 924c (use/carrying of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking or violent offense) held over people’s heads to get them to plea to the associated drug trafficking offense. 924c carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years incarceration with greater sentences for certain aggravating circumstances.

[joshs]

Federal prosections do happen, even if many referred cases are not prosecuted: https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/560/

[RevolverRob]

Someone still hasn't pointed out to me where it says in the Constitution that you have a right to own and operate a: Car, motorcycle, van, truck, train, airplane, ship, row boat, raft, jet ski, snow mobile, tractor, horse drawn carriage, chariot, horse, donkey, mule, camel, llama, alpaca, or even a dog sled.

When someone finds that amendment for me in the Bill of Rights then I'll consider the idea that we could regulate firearms like transportation to have some potential validity. Until then, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is enshrined in the Constitution and the privilege of owning a form of transportation is and can be regulated by the state and Federal government as related to the roles of those modes of transportation for intra and interstate commerce.

[TC215]

I have heard that federal prosecutors drop firearm charges because of mandatory sentencing rules. There is a desire to reduce prison populations--especially the number of incarcerated minority persons. Hence I doubt if we will see gun crimes adding to prison populations.

I’ve worked a lot of federal drug cases. As DanM mentioned, 924(c) carries a mandatory 5 years that runs consecutive to the sentence for any other charges. However, many gun charges do not carry minimum mandatory sentences (such as felon in possession).

There are some crimes locally that will only get prosecuted if a firearm is involved, such as marijuana cases under 2,000 pounds and Hobbs Act robberies (and we have a very aggressive USAO).

[flyrodr]

I'm not sure why "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand.

The same difficulty apparently exists with understanding that "militia" is the people, the citizens, and not the formal military. That the Bill of Rights was expressly added to the Constitution to further describe to the people that these were individual rights.

[ccmdfd]

If we’re going to equate the ownership of cars and guns, then

Using a vehicle in a crime will add 10 years to your sentence but will be the first charge thrown out in a plea bargain.
No gas tank will hold over 10 gallons and the most common one won’t be reliable.
Imports of cheap fuel from certain countries will be banned.
Only the military and police will own vehicles with automatic transmissions or that seat more than four people.
You won’t be able to operate a vehicle within 100 yards of a school.
The most interesting models won’t be available in California or Massachusetts.
A muffler will cost $1,500 and require a $200 tax stamp plus a one-year wait for paperwork.
California vehicle owners will need three people to unscrew a gas cap.
Fuel will be impossible to find in the run up to a presidential election.
The DMV will be staffed by neckbeards.

Welcome to our world, motherfuckers.


Okie John

After chewing on this a bit further, I humbly offer

11. If you are an important politician, like Congressman, Senator, or in the state legislature, or a famous celebrity; then you can own as many cars as you like, and there is no size limit on them. Because we are concerned with, you know, your safety.

[Bigghoss]

Well first of all I don't agree with all those laws for my car either.

There are lots of nice countries that have gun control. A person that wants to live in a country with strict gun laws has options, they can move. The United States has the loosest gun laws of any developed country so a person that wants loose gun laws doesn't really have options.

That's beside the fact that rather than raising themselves up to meet a challenge they would rather drag everyone else down to their level and make people accommodate them.