Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The Four Major Gun Control Laws Applied Federally

1. Licensing of all gun owners
2. Registration of all guns to a licensed gun owner
3. Background check required on all transfers
4. Three-day waiting period for first-time buyers


  1. You are truly delusional. Let's play make-believe and pretend that all of that becomes law. What about the 300,000,000 privately held firearms in this country? The majority of those are unregistered, and their owners are unlicensed. Many of them have been transfered in private sales already, so even the ATF form is no longer useful. Do you imagine that all those guns will just disappear? Do you imagine that all those gun owners will dutifully walk into a government agency to comply?

    Enough make-believe. Congress and state legislatures won't pass this nonsense.

    1. What if these laws applied only to new gun owners and newly bought firearms?

    2. "What if these laws applied only to new gun owners and newly bought firearms?"

      Assuming these laws took effect today, you just created the potential for a huge black market. Current 'grandfathered' guns could still be traded freely because there is no way to track them, or control them. The criminals will still get their firearms by the same methods they do now, theft, buying off of black market, straw buying, borrow from a friend, community guns, etc)

      If these laws only applied to new gun owners, then I would never get one, and I'd still collect and trade firearms.

    3. No, Bill they couldn't be traded freely unless the people involved were willing to break the law. You're the one who keeps telling us how law abiding most gun owners are. Most would obey.

    4. You keep missing the point Mike, law abiding would have to obey the law, after all thats what it means to be law abiding. But NO law in place now or anything you and other anti gun people have dreamed up will make a criminal obey. Period.

      Restrictive laws only restrict law abiding and make it easier for the criminals to keep doing what they do,,,,,, unopposed.

    5. Mikeb, have you spent any time studying Prohibition? That vast control freak experiment turned millions of decent and otherwise law-abiding Americans into criminals. It created a huge black market that penny-ante thugs rose to fill. It was a grotesque failure. Have you studied our current war on drugs? The same is true there. When there's a demand for a product and someone bans it, those who want the product will continue to get it.

      Prohibiting a product is stupid. We have laws that govern behavior--it's illegal to drive drunk; it's illegal to commit murder. We all support those laws. But your kind of control won't work. It could make things worse. If you knew anything about Prohibition, you'd consider that possibility.

    6. Texas Colt Carry, that is my point. Law abiding folks obey the laws. When the law goes into effect that says no more private transfers without a background check, those guys will obey.

    7. You mean the way that law-abiding people stopped drinking alcohol during Prohibition? When the law becomes stupid, good citizens learn to ignore it. That's the danger of too much control. Heavy-handed government creates a distrust and a hatred of authority. You never take that into account.

    8. But the point in question is still this, how is that going to curtail criminals from getting the guns? I have said before, your after the wrong segment, you have nothing to fear from me so why offer up proposals that only restrict me?

      Your fear is still the criminal, not me and those wont do anything to them.

      If you want to discuss REAL solutions, I would be happy to do that but your closed to that idea. Again, I am inviting you to a real discussion, again, still.

    9. Texas, are you playing hard to get? Many criminals get their guns through private sales. This could be stopped.

      Will some of them just resort to other means? Yes. Will all of them? No.

    10. "Texas, are you playing hard to get? Many criminals get their guns through private sales. This could be stopped."

      Not playing hard to get at all. You want to have a real discussion on firearm obtainment? Talk to me, one to one.

      "Will some of them just resort to other means? Yes. Will all of them? No."

      Sorry, thats just an assumption on your part. YES, a criminal will always seek out and obtain the tools to do their crimes. GUNS!

      The criminals obtained their guns when there was an almost total prohibition on them for nearly 40 years Mike, they had no problem getting them.

      I probably know more about how criminals get there guns on here than anybody. I have also aquired and disposed of more guns than most have ever owned. You want to talk to someone that knows the process, talk to me. Just from what I have had to deal with in my profession alone, I have dealt with more law makers, the county and state legal system than ANYONE on here, want to know how to deal with the process, talk to me.

      I invited you to talk to me about the ammo limits, you accused me of being closed up, but your the one that cut me off. I am inviting you again to have the talks, REAL talks with REAL solutions, just between you and me, again, still. You game?

      You should know that I have a high dis-taste for criminals over all, and no tolerance for gun crime at all. That is if you have ever bothered to read my responses. You should know as well that some of my solutions may well piss off some of the pro gun side as well. Some will piss you off, maybe not. But nobody is going to be fully happy,,, except the criminal if your proposals ever get put into place.

    11. Mikeb, remember when I told you that you don't respond to my points? Here's an example. I've cited Prohibition as an illustration of what would happen if your proposals became law. That was a case in the real world, well documented in history, of a ban on a product that the people desired. I've named that repeatedly over the year that I've been commenting here, and yet you haven't answered it.

    12. Fair enough, Greg. I usually ignore the Prohibition comparison like I often ignore the car comparisons. They don't really work.

      Prohibition of alcohol could be compared to the war on drugs, I suppose, but neither can be compared to gun control.

      First of all, no one I know is talking about a total prohibition of guns. Secondly, substances used to get high are totally different from an inanimate object such as a gun. It's apples and oranges.

      On top of all that, I think you're mistaken about the average law-abiding person's response to Prohibition. I read one article that said most obeyed. It said the results were improvements in the incidents of liver disease and accidents.

    13. Car comparisons work only in a way of personal property, licensing and registration.

      Prohibition of alcohol works as a demonstration of the law abiding, as alcohol was/is viewed as a recreational escape like drugs.

      Guns fit a category in itself because it is a right to an individual of self protection, not hunting or recreation. Al tho those other reasons fit in the right of choice, pursuit of happiness and survival.
      The right to arms is the right of FREEDOM. The right has not diminished over time. Every person on the planet was born with this right, governments take it away. When our US government was born, it simply recognized and prevented the right from ever being taken away by the government.

      But Mike, like any other right, someone will try to abuse those rights. But that is the price of freedom. Those that abuse should face the consequences, ultimately if the abuse/crime is severe enough.

      The problem comes when people/governments start to curtail everyone Else's rights because of the person who abuses his. That is fundamentally wrong. Now the people is now tired of paying for the abuser in the form of loosing or restricting everyone Else's right.

      All of your proposals seek to diminish everyones right to arms. Does nothing for those who abuse them. I am still waiting for your answer, do you wish to have a conversation that can work towards a solution?

      I await your resoponse.

    14. "do you wish to have a conversation that can work towards a solution?

      I await your resoponse."

      Well, number 1, we are having that discussion, and 2, I posted the solution above.

    15. "Well, number 1, we are having that discussion"

      No, this is not a discussion in any definition of the word and not one on one with me. What you have is a dictate.

      "and 2, I posted the solution above"

      It may be a partial solution but does not address the problems your trying to solve.

      I am sure that there is a way that you and me only can post on a thread everyone can see but is only accessed by just us, one on one. With this venue we can lay out each concern, say 25 items each. Discuss each item and work to a solution on each one until we both agree and then that item goes to a can. Work this until we have all 50 items in the can, agreed upon. From there laws can be structured that have a true impact on what we both want to see happen,,,, a true solution.

      Once that is done then open the thread up to discussion from everyone to see the rest of the opinions would be. If we did this right then everyone should agree that it can be a workable solution. If not then we re-visit the problems.

      Its called a reach across the isle as it were. Give and take but focuses on the problems and deal with facts only, not opinions or feelings.

      Are you willing to do this type of discussion?

    16. We're already doing that type of discussion and we can't seem to agree on much at all.

      If the way I run my blog is so frustrating to you, you should start your own. Use those good ideas yourself if you like.

    17. You are certainly free to run your blog the way you like. I was mainly interested to see if you are truly interested in making a real difference. Since this blog is one of the very few that has comments on it, I thought that maybe, just maybe you would be the one capable to reach across and be willing to work on real solutions. I guess I was wrong.

      But you can never say I didn't offer to try, even at the risk of pissing off the pro gun side.

    18. "maybe, just maybe" and "I guess I was wrong," makes you sound like a phoney baloney.

      We're already doing what you say you want to do. Now, you're pretending that I refuse to do it. I call bullshit on your entire request.

      If you want to make some points, go ahead, no one's stopping you. If they make sense I'll be the first one to say so. Then we'll have a "real solution."

      The problem is you have nothing to offer but the standard NRA, pro-gun nonsense, which for the most part is worthless.

    19. No, not no where a phony baloney. But, however I do think you are.

      Since we can not have a true discussion, you have no idea what I am about.

      All you propose wont be even agreeable to anyone who owns weapons but dont care about any NRA or the like. Heck I dont even care about them. Even those that dont own weapons wont even agree to you Mike, just because of what you represent and the rest of what you are will lead to.

      But several others have been reading along with me and they have come to a conculsion that you are a phony baloney for other reasons. They say you are a phony baloney because they insist that you are really very PRO GUN and just present these arguements so that the anti-gun can just see how really stupid they are. I didnt think so at first but now I am beginning to see what they do.

      Thats why you dont want to have a one on one, thats why you dont really wish to work with pro-gun guys, it would undermine your pro-gun side to work aginst them.

    20. Texas Colt Carry, I've wondered the same thing. His "arguments" are so far from reality that it's hard to believe that they're genuine. But then I read student essays and realize that some people are just that crazy or uninformed.

    21. We have been wandering about him, or rather my co-readers have for some time, really since he returned from his vacation. Even with his co-bloggers arguments that have been so over the top as to be completely unbelievable.

      Even when, as I understand it, they had limited access to this site while he was gone and caused comments go to nothing. When there is no comments or deleted comments, he couldn't show the world how off the wall the anti-gun ideas are.

      It was counter productive for him not to have comments. So what other reason could there be if he is not actually pro gun. Especially when you consider he leaves so many comment threads end with the pro-gun comments.

      I do have ideas, well, let me put it this way, WE have several ideas to accomplish what we all want, to do something about the criminal element without stepping on the constitution. What Mike doesn't realize is his input can (if he was truly anti-gun that is) help govern these proposals from going too far pro gun. These will eventually become bills to be submitted. I have to admit, the guys I am around are very pro, too pro for my taste and I am afraid that the writings wont get consideration the way they want them.

      Since I have been chasing around ideas from lots of sites, now that I have plenty of time to do so, I figured I would try to get one on one input from the other side to be considered, a beta test so to speak.

      So now we are down to one of two things, Mike is either too anti-gun like the brady bunch to get input from or too pro-gun and cant offer any thoughts.

      I am seeing VERY pro gun.

  2. 1, licenses for virtually anything has always been a state issue. This would create a huge tax funded department. That would force non gun owners to pay for gun owners needs.

    2, federal registration has always been illegal. See no. one for cost.

    3, Same reason as no. one.

    4, Waiting period has never accomplished anything that it was intended to do. See expired gun laws for those reasons.

  3. Licensing gun owners ... I could be on board if:
    every citizen is eligible as long as they have no violent felony convictions or court orders regarding mental health, the license is good for life and costs less than $20, and it means I can carry openly or concealed everywhere (including "sensitive areas" like schools and airport sterile areas) in every state and territory of the U.S.

    Registration will not accomplish anything. If a citizen wants to direct firearms to a "friend" who has a criminal record, the citizen can simply tell the criminal to "steal" the firearm and the citizen will conveniently be unaware of the theft. Thus law enforcement would not be able to prosecute the citizen for a straw purchase, illegal transfer, etc. Another down side: entities could use the registration database to disarm the populous. (It happened in California, Canada, and Australia.)

    Background check on private transfers ... not sure about that one. Would be unnecessary if everyone had a license. (A private seller could make a quick call to verify that a citizen's license was still active.)

    Three day waiting period for first time buyers: I don't see what that would accomplish. Is it supposed to stop "crimes of passion"? How often does that really happen and how many injuries would go away every year as a result? How about scenarios where a citizen discovers they are suddenly a target? Do they have to be defenseless for three days? How about a first time buyer that finds a great deal or sale that will not be available in three days?

    Better question. Let's apply the same requirements to anyone who wants to exercise the First Amendment outside of their home. Want to type on a blog? Get a license, verify that the blog is registered and thus "legitimate" with our government, make sure the blog owner and participants pass background checks, then wait three days before being able to type if it is your first time posting to a blog.

    Same thing for religion. Want to attend church? Get a license to attend church outside of your home. Make sure the church you want to attend is registered with the government and is legitimate. Verify that all participants pass background checks. And finally wait three days before attending church for the first time.

    Of course some people will argue, "But guns kill people; free speech and religion don't kill people." Actually speech and religion has riled people to kill other people. But that isn't the focus of those rights. The purpose of rights is to save lives and freedom. And since lots of people bear arms for the explicit purpose of saving lives and freedom, it is a right that must stand and without restrictions that interfere with its intended purpose.

    1. Well you beat me to it, carry ANYWHERE despite what the Bloombergs would want. Anywhere in the U.S.A. and its territories, anytime. It would be a federal license after all, currently the law enforcement agencies cant even do that. So that would give more power and latitude to the civilian gun owners than any law enforcement segment. I would be on board with this part, most any gun owner would!

      A gun is private property, just like a car. A gun is also manufactured under federal control, just like a car. A gun doesnt have to be licensed or registered to be kept on private property in most places, just like a car. A gun in and of itself is not dangerous until in a criminals hands, just like a car. People are law abiding until they are not and can legally purchase anything until they cross the line. Once a criminal is convicted and let out, they will aquire what they want illegally anyway, RIGHT?

      Of course they will!

    2. Be glad it is only 3 days for you. CA is 10 days. Interminable waiting time.

    3. Instant purchase for me. The only wait time I have is standing at the counter waiting for the sales guy to complete the paper work. Usually 20 minutes to an hour depending on how busy they are from the time I decide on which one I want to take home.

      Who waits three days anyway?

    4. Here in Arkansas, those of us with carry licenses don't even have to wait for a phone call to the background check system. We select the gun, pay the money, and walk out the door.

    5. Greg, did you miss the part of number 4 which says "for first time buyers?"

    6. No, I didn't miss it. It's unrealistic. Again, there are far too many guns in this country for your proposals to work. Far too many gun owners hate the idea of your proposals. When the law pushes too hard, the people stop respecting the law. You say that most people followed Prohibition. Actually, many used a religion exemption to get around the law, while some obeyed. But enough people broke the law and did what they wanted to do that it was a failure. The same is true for drugs. How many people in this country have used marijuana? It's illegal, but I don't see that as stopping many from smoking it if they wish. The same would be true about guns.

      And yes, your side does want a total ban. You've approached that in recent remarks, and your fellow control advocates have said as much in unguarded moments. You refuse to acknowledge the implications of what you propose. The severe limitations would make legal gun ownership all but impossible. Illegal gun ownership would continue merrily along.

  4. "3. Background check required on all transfers"

    Yeah, this would be like requiring a crack head to get a prescription before buying drugs at the local crack house.

  5. Texas Colt Carry says:

    "They say you are a phony baloney because they insist that you are really very PRO GUN and just present these arguements so that the anti-gun can just see how really stupid they are. I didnt think so at first but now I am beginning to see what they do."

    I've heard this one before. In other words, my writing skills in attempting to describe my gun control position and my attempts at arguing those points is all SO POOR, that I must really be pro-gun. Nothing else could explain such an awful showing.

    Let me say this with all due respect. You are totally full of shit. You know very well that's not the case and this is nothing more than a silly attempt at stabbing me in what you must think is a humorous way.

    I think it's funny too, but not in the way you do. The joke's on you, my friend.

  6. It wasnt a stab at you, just an observation. I am not the only one that see you in this light. No joke intended, no joke implied.

    I didnt say that you had poor writing skills or even your points are poor. In fact there are some points that I even agree with you on. But its the WAY you present things and leave them that make some suspect that you are not what you try to portray.

    If you got to know me as a person you will find that I dont have a sense of humor, or at least the way most have. I speak my mind truthfully and move on. I dont joke about much at all, I dont know how. I dont joke on things that I am serious about at all. I dont identify with those that think the world is a joke, to much mis-interpretation is the result.

    I was raised with serious parents doing serious work. I do the same and raised my kids the same way. I have been accused of having a dry sense of humor, I just look at them and ask where they thought they found humor in what I just said. I am not joking, now go do what I told you to do. They obvioulsy thought I must have been joking when they were told to do something or not to do something. Kids or employess, it didnt matter, I meant what I said.

    I mean what I say to you as well Mike, I dont joke.