My Proposal for alleviating United States Firearm issues

[Desk trauma]

We try to 'overthrow' the government with every election, but it hasn't been very effective.

Alternative definitions I see.

 

[Desk trauma]

Are those registrations universal and turned into a governing body, or kept by your person and for your person in the event they're needed?

They are in the relevant DMV data base.

 

[98cwitr]

They are in the relevant DMV data base.

That's after the sale and you've turned in the tag. Ive never turned in a bill of sale for example to the DMV though. So again, if you sell me your car and then I go mow down a crowd of people, are you liable?

 

[Desk trauma]

That's after the sale and you've turned in the tag. Ive never turned in a bill of sale for example to the DMV though.

Who a vehicle is registered to is in a database. Should I worry about my truck being taken because the records of its registration and taxes are electronic?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's after the sale and you've turned in the tag. Ive never turned in a bill of sale for example to the DMV though. So again, if you sell me your car and then I go mow down a crowd of people, are you liable?

You may actually be liable if you tell the person not to mow people down with the car. In a world of rebellious contrarians the court may find that by just mentioning it you goaded the person into doing it... all part of the pc world.

 

[Speedwell]

That's after the sale and you've turned in the tag. Ive never turned in a bill of sale for example to the DMV though. So again, if you sell me your car and then I go mow down a crowd of people, are you liable?

What state do you live in? Can you really transfer title without the state being in on it?

 

[98cwitr]

What state do you live in? Can you really transfer title without the state being in on it?

I mean you can sign the title over to me, take my money, and I sign a bill of sale stating I am now in possession of the vehicle; but this is of little concern to me if my intentions are malicious.

I know I'm asking @Desk trauma this question in an almost rhetorical fashion at this point, and the obvious answer is that no, he is not responsible for my actions with whatever property I have now taken lawful possession of. That said, if @Desk trauma decided to leave his car unlocked and running, and I steal it and mow a bunch of people down with it, and there's a law that says he is responsible for securing his vehicle at all times when he's not driving it, then he could be held negligent. Make sense?

 

[Speedwell]

I mean you can sign the title over to me, take my money, and I sign a bill of sale stating I am now in possession of the vehicle; but this is of little concern to me if my intentions are malicious.

I know I'm asking @Desk trauma this question in an almost rhetorical fashion at this point, and the obvious answer is that no, he is not responsible for my actions with whatever property I have now taken lawful possession of.

I don't think anyone has disputed that point.

 

[Belk]

Grandma told me to learn from others mistakes, rather than my own.

So it has never happened here but you are afraid of it in any case? It seems to me you are losing a very effective tool due to irrational fear rather then caution. That strikes me as an issue with your proposal.

 

[jardiniere]

Not so fast, there. In the minds of our wanna-be Minute Men it's always the Real Americans resisting the tyranny of the Left, and everybody knows that liberals don't own guns.

Ha. I've been shooting rifles and pistols since I was 8. I'm liberal (at this point in time, anyway).

The suggestions are good, but I would register firearms and, like in owning cars, require insurance. Penalties should be about as severe as that in the licensing of autos, confiscation, fines, removal of license.

 

[Skreeper]

Doesn't give them even equal power to the military. It does though give them a fighting chance in the event the government attempts tyranny.

Let's count the amount of times throughout history an armed civil population had a fighting chance against a government that turned tyrannical:

1. "Data not available"

Yikes.

Let's count the amount of times throughout history the majority of the military chose to fight for the people instead of following orders of the tyrannical government:

1. "Data not available"

Double yikes.

 

[98cwitr]

Let's count the amount of times throughout history an armed civil population had a fighting chance against a government that turned tyrannical:

1. "Data not available"

Yikes.

Let's count the amount of times throughout history the majority of the military chose to fight for the people instead of following orders of the tyrannical government:

1. "Data not available"

Double yikes.

1. American Revolution

2. French Revolution

3. Irish Rebellion of 1641

I can keep going....

 

[Speedwell]

1. American Revolution

2. French Revolution

3. Irish Rebellion of 1641

I can keep going....

In the case of the American Revolution, armed and at least minimally trained civilian militias already existed. The French revolutionaries fought as militias armed from government stockpiles. The reason the French stormed the Bastille was because it was an armory and they wanted the guns and ammunition. Such few participants in the Irish Rebellion who bore arms were given them by their leaders.

You can keep going if you want, but I doubt you will find a good example of untrained and unorganized private citizen gun owners suddenly coalescing into an effective revolutionary force.

 

[98cwitr]

So it has never happened here but you are afraid of it in any case? It seems to me you are losing a very effective tool due to irrational fear rather then caution. That strikes me as an issue with your proposal.

It's happened plenty of times, but Americans, learning from the errors and evils of the past, ensured that our Bill of Rights included an enumeration of inalienable rights to prevent tyranny from usurping liberty without armed resistance.

 

[Belk]

It's happened plenty of times, but Americans, learning from the errors and evils of the past, ensured that our Bill of Rights included an enumeration of inalienable rights to prevent tyranny from usurping liberty without armed resistance.

If it is ensured in the bill of rights then there is no need to worry about confiscation. As I said, It seems to me you are losing a very effective tool due to irrational fear.

 

[Ricky M]

What they had in mind was a force of citizen soldiers--the "well-regulated militia." Ownership of guns in secret from the government was not contemplated. And if, in fact, registered ownership led to an attempted confiscation it could not as a practical matter be accomplished with all gun owners simultaneously, giving the rest time to organize some kind of response.

And it was the militia that fought against the ruling government. You're right they did not intend it to be individual ownerships, but as a part of a trained group.

Be that as it may US civilians with small arms overthrowing the government is a fantasy.

That's why the second amendment specifically calls for a militia. It never was about individual gun ownership.

 

[renniks]

2. Safe storage law: When not being carried/bore by a person, all firearms must be kept in a locked and secured container. Such containers that would provide access-at-the-ready, but also reasonably deter theft or unauthorized access

Nope, this is not acceptable. Why do I need to lock up my guns when they are on my property? That's too restrictive. When you need a gun in seconds, is not the time to be fumbling with a lock.

 

[renniks]

But 98 does have a point, the second amendment was written by people who had just fought a shooting war against a government that had turned oppressive and unresponsive. It's hard to imagine that was not the scenario they had in mind while writing the amendment.

How many countries where they have taken guns away did not end up with losing other freedoms? The 2nd amendment is exactly that, to keep government in check.

 

[98cwitr]

Nope, this is not acceptable. Why do I need to lock up my guns when they are on my property? That's too restrictive. When you need a gun in seconds, is not the time to be fumbling with a lock.

Biometrics solves that. You lock them up because the least of us have kids running around; and if someone breaks into your home without you there then the guns are unsecured and easily fall into the hands of criminals.

 

[Desk trauma]

Nope, this is not acceptable. Why do I need to lock up my guns when they are on my property?

Basic safety and security.

That's too restrictive. When you need a gun in seconds, is not the time to be fumbling with a lock.

That's why biometric gun safes exist.