Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks together?

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Arjay81 said:

And how would this be enforced in places like Chicago and Los Angeles? Stern warnings don't seem to be working.

Gangs and criminals don't care about the law.

Click to expand...

How are any laws enforced?

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

trouble13 said:

Ask the ones in jail about that

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Better yet, ask the ones who are not in jail. They are the majority.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Arjay81 said:

If you submit to registration of your guns, all it does is to make it easier for the gun grabbers to know where to look and steal your property.

Click to expand...

Where do i mention registration in the OP?

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Kreton said:

How are any laws enforced?

Click to expand...

Break one and find out.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

AGENT J said:

Where do i mention registration in the OP?

Click to expand...

It is de-facto registration to follow what you suggest.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Arjay81 said:

Break one and find out.

Click to expand...

ok then. so your point is to try to convince me to break the law?

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Cephus said:

There is no Constitutional protection for unregistered guns.

Click to expand...

If you think so the honest way to go is to reformulate the Constitution to make that clear. Registration reduces the power of the balance weapons in the hands of citizens have. I realize that many folks don't like doing things right of late and take the easy way. But that is not very savvy and produces anger, brings backlash and gave us Trump.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Arjay81 said:

It is de-facto registration to follow what you suggest.

Click to expand...

No, it factually is not.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Arjay81 said:

There also is no Constitutional demand for registering guns. A murky law passed in the 20th century but not in the Constitution except for allowing the 2nd amendment and arming of the citizens.

Click to expand...

It is unrealistic to think that there will be no limits on firearms. It just is. That has never been the case and never will be. We have to deal with reality, not idealism.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

joG said:

If you think so the honest way to go is to reformulate the Constitution to make that clear. Registration reduces the power of the balance weapons in the hands of citizens have. I realize that many folks don't like doing things right of late and take the easy way. But that is not very savvy and produces anger, brings backlash and gave us Trump.

Click to expand...

Nothing I proposed stops any legal citizen from owning firearms, therefore it doesn't violate the Constitution in any way, shape or form. You are asserting purpose to gun ownership, which is not detailed in the 2nd Amendment.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Moon said:

This is one of the most draconian, unconstitutional and anti-freedom proposal I believe I've ever seen.

"Mr. Jones, we're going to have to take you to prison. Remember a couple years back when your house was broken into while you were away? You know, when the guy raped and killed your wife and stole your gun? Yeah, someone used that gun to murder someone, and we decided you didn't store it adequately, so now you need to come with us. Don't worry about calling a lawyer, we've already decided what your sentence is."

I just hope your proposal was just a poor attempt at humor. Gun owners aren't the bad guys.

Click to expand...

My proposal is based on the success of such laws in other countries. Why shouldn't you be responsible for the whereabouts of your gun? True, you're not responsible for the exact crime committed, but you should be on the hook if you lose control of its whereabouts, shouldn't you? And I'm not talking about if someone steals it from your car while you step out to get gas or something, but from your home where it should be secured.

In Canada they take this matter very seriously. If your gun is missing you must report it stolen ASAP and if a crime is committed with it, you will be equally investigated.

AGENT J said:

1.) sorry thats insane to me. Im fine with the law as it is and people can already be found guilty of negligence but i would never support additional laws demanding how i store my gun. that endangers me more so than anything else.

Click to expand...

The negligence laws aren't enough. Some of the massacres and gun tragedies of the past decade were from the perps taking guns from people they lived with, and the gun owners never saw any time for that. I think if someone uses your firearms to kill themselves or accidentally/intentionally kills someone else with it while you're not there to supervise their use of your gun, you should be liable. Not just under tort law but criminal law.

If we really want a 2nd Amendment country then gun owners need to show maximum responsibility. This law would also bypass the need to actually monitor HOW people secure their guns (like in Canada, where law enforcement can come to your home to ensure you're doing it properly) because I don't agree with that. Having steeper consequences is deterrent enough.

Are you arguing that storage rules make you less safe because you can't just grab it quickly if there's an intruder?

About CCW, I think it should be left to the States. I personally miss having CCW (I live in Canada now) but I don't see it as a universally good thing. In places like NYC, Chicago, LA... I don't want to see increases in gun carrying.

RetiredUSN said:

Do you feel the same way about your stolen car being used to rob a bank, or running over innocent people?

Click to expand...

When was the last time hundreds of people were massacred with a car in the USA? Nobody in the U.S. right now is talking about more car control because they're being used to intentionally kill so many people. If you can't argue against the merits of what I'm saying without switching the goal posts then your argument is not very effectual. I'm open to reasonable critique here.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Moon said:

This is one of the most draconian, unconstitutional and anti-freedom proposal I believe I've ever seen.

"Mr. Jones, we're going to have to take you to prison. Remember a couple years back when your house was broken into while you were away? You know, when the guy raped and killed your wife and stole your gun? Yeah, someone used that gun to murder someone, and we decided you didn't store it adequately, so now you need to come with us. Don't worry about calling a lawyer, we've already decided what your sentence is."

I just hope your proposal was just a poor attempt at humor. Gun owners aren't the bad guys.

Click to expand...

Which, of course, is a little silly. If your gun is stolen, you report it as stolen and you're no longer responsible for what is done with it.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Northern Light said:

My proposal is based on the success of such laws in other countries. Why shouldn't you be responsible for the whereabouts of your gun? True, you're not responsible for the exact crime committed, but you should be on the hook if you lose control of its whereabouts, shouldn't you? And I'm not talking about if someone steals it from your car while you step out to get gas or something, but from your home where it should be secured.

In Canada they take this matter very seriously. If your gun is missing you must report it stolen ASAP and if a crime is committed with it, you will be equally investigated.



The negligence laws aren't enough. Some of the massacres and gun tragedies of the past decade were from the perps taking guns from people they lived with, and the gun owners never saw any time for that. I think if someone uses your firearms to kill themselves or accidentally/intentionally kills someone else with it while you're not there to supervise their use of your gun, you should be liable. Not just under tort law but criminal law.

If we really want a 2nd Amendment country then gun owners need to show maximum responsibility. This law would also bypass the need to actually monitor HOW people secure their guns (like in Canada, where law enforcement can come to your home to ensure you're doing it properly) because I don't agree with that. Having steeper consequences is deterrent enough.

Are you arguing that storage rules make you less safe because you can't just grab it quickly if there's an intruder?

About CCW, I think it should be left to the States. I personally miss having CCW (I live in Canada now) but I don't see it as a universally good thing. In places like NYC, Chicago, LA... I don't want to see increases in gun carrying.



When was the last time hundreds of people were massacred with a car in the USA? Nobody in the U.S. right now is talking about more car control because they're being used to intentionally kill so many people. If you can't argue against the merits of what I'm saying without switching the goal posts then your argument is not very effectual. I'm open to reasonable critique here.

Click to expand...

How do you make out the "success of such laws in other countries"?

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

It's nobody's business whether I leave my gun on my computer desk, on my night stand, or have it in a safe.

I don't have any kids around.

My house is my castle, and if you break into my house and steal my gun..................it's on you!

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Northern Light said:

1.) The negligence laws aren't enough.
2.) Some of the massacres and gun tragedies of the past decade were from the perps taking guns from people they lived with, and the gun owners never saw any time for that.
3.) I think if someone uses your firearms to kill themselves or accidentally/intentionally kills someone else with it while you're not there to supervise their use of your gun, you should be liable. Not just under tort law but criminal law.
4.)If we really want a 2nd Amendment country then gun owners need to show maximum responsibility. This law would also bypass the need to actually monitor HOW people secure their guns (like in Canada, where law enforcement can come to your home to ensure you're doing it properly) because I don't agree with that. Having steeper consequences is deterrent enough.

Are you arguing that storage rules make you less safe because you can't just grab it quickly if there's an intruder?

About CCW, I think it should be left to the States. I personally miss having CCW (I live in Canada now) but I don't see it as a universally good thing. In places like NYC, Chicago, LA... I don't want to see increases in gun carrying.

Click to expand...

1.) yes they are enough
2.) so? negligence has to be proven or it cant be, its really simple.
3.) and thats "possible" under negligence, no new laws need to be made.
4.) again negligence can cover that
5.) its not an argument its a fact depending on how the storage law is written.
6.) so you arent going to admit what you said was inaccurate and over the top about " national CC just opens a whole can of worms to unqualified people." You realize a national CC would still NOT be allowed where CC is not allowed now right? Driver licences being national doeasnt allow me to drive a car where one inst allowed.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

AGENT J said:

1.) yes they are enough
2.) so? negligence has to be proven or it cant be, its really simple.
3.) and thats "possible" under negligence, no new laws need to be made.
4.) again negligence can cover that
5.) its not an argument its a fact depending on how the storage law is written.
6.) so you arent going to admit what you said was inaccurate and over the top about " national CC just opens a whole can of worms to unqualified people." You realize a national CC would still NOT be allowed where CC is not allowed now right? Driver licences being national doeasnt allow me to drive a car where one inst allowed.

Click to expand...

I find myself agreeing with you... I wasn't totally convinced of the idea myself.

Every time I try to come up with an idea to limit guns it just doesn't apply the same in the U.S. as it does everywhere else.

Hope you don't think I'm an anti-2nd liberal

For me to comes back to our deep denial as a nation, and it's not about guns. It's about the conditions of our society which create people who want to grab a gun and just start shooting. It's a subject that almost everyone is afraid to look at. It's easier to blame guns themselves, or just write them off as crazy people without truly examining the conditions that brought them to that point.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

joG said:

How do you make out the "success of such laws in other countries"?

Click to expand...

By their gun deaths per capita. But I live in a country where it's illegal to even point the muzzle of a gun at someone, regardless of the reason.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Northern Light said:

I find myself agreeing with you... I wasn't totally convinced of the idea myself.

Every time I try to come up with an idea to limit guns it just doesn't apply the same in the U.S. as it does everywhere else.

Hope you don't think I'm an anti-2nd liberal

For me to comes back to our deep denial as a nation, and it's not about guns. It's about the conditions of our society which create people who want to grab a gun and just start shooting. It's a subject that almost everyone is afraid to look at. It's easier to blame guns themselves, or just write them off as crazy people without truly examining the conditions that brought them to that point.

Click to expand...

Gun control can and should be part of the solution

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Kreton said:

What purpose does hiding your guns and owning them in secret serve? IMO own as many guns as you want, but do it openly and take responsibility for them.

Click to expand...

Not allowing the government to pry into what property people own or not is not the same as keeping it secret.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

vegas giants said:

Gun control can and should be part of the solution

Click to expand...

I'm a moderate when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, I don't like seeing proposals that take away major gun rights. I also don't really like seeing pro-gun people say nothing should change. At the same time, it has to be a holistic solution. Gun control might be part of the solution but it's not the root of the problem. Most law abiding people don't own automatic, even grandfathered-in ones.

Our country has deeper problems that aren't being looked at. One in six Americans is on a psychiatric medication. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the way that the average American is living is unhealthy or in some way ruinous to mental health? These shooters seem like the extreme end of that reality, but most of America is "depressed".

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Northern Light said:

My proposal is based on the success of such laws in other countries. Why shouldn't you be responsible for the whereabouts of your gun? True, you're not responsible for the exact crime committed, but you should be on the hook if you lose control of its whereabouts, shouldn't you? And I'm not talking about if someone steals it from your car while you step out to get gas or something, but from your home where it should be secured.

In Canada they take this matter very seriously. If your gun is missing you must report it stolen ASAP and if a crime is committed with it, you will be equally investigated.



The negligence laws aren't enough. Some of the massacres and gun tragedies of the past decade were from the perps taking guns from people they lived with, and the gun owners never saw any time for that. I think if someone uses your firearms to kill themselves or accidentally/intentionally kills someone else with it while you're not there to supervise their use of your gun, you should be liable. Not just under tort law but criminal law.

If we really want a 2nd Amendment country then gun owners need to show maximum responsibility. This law would also bypass the need to actually monitor HOW people secure their guns (like in Canada, where law enforcement can come to your home to ensure you're doing it properly) because I don't agree with that. Having steeper consequences is deterrent enough.

Are you arguing that storage rules make you less safe because you can't just grab it quickly if there's an intruder?

About CCW, I think it should be left to the States. I personally miss having CCW (I live in Canada now) but I don't see it as a universally good thing. In places like NYC, Chicago, LA... I don't want to see increases in gun carrying.



When was the last time hundreds of people were massacred with a car in the USA? Nobody in the U.S. right now is talking about more car control because they're being used to intentionally kill so many people. If you can't argue against the merits of what I'm saying without switching the goal posts then your argument is not very effectual. I'm open to reasonable critique here.

Click to expand...

I am not responsible for the criminal actions of anyone but myself, regardless of whether or not they used something that once belonged to me. Period. Trying to turn citizens into criminals for something they didn't do is about as anti-freedom as it can get.

I honestly don't care what other countries do. I like being a citizen of the United States and have no desire to be a subject under some other government. I have no interest in ceding any of the freedoms I enjoy to any government.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Cephus said:

Which, of course, is a little silly. If your gun is stolen, you report it as stolen and you're no longer responsible for what is done with it.

Click to expand...

Not according to the proposal I was r responding to. The standard used was how the weapon was stired in the home not whether it was reported or not.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

RetiredUSN said:

It's nobody's business whether I leave my gun on my computer desk, on my night stand, or have it in a safe.

I don't have any kids around.

My house is my castle, and if you break into my house and steal my gun..................it's on you!

Click to expand...

A stunningly simple concept that appears to have been lost in the zeal to turn gun owners into criminals.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Moon said:

I am not responsible for the criminal actions of anyone but myself, regardless of whether or not they used something that once belonged to me. Period. Trying to turn citizens into criminals for something they didn't do is about as anti-freedom as it can get.

Click to expand...

Negligence laws turn you into a criminal for things you didn't do that resulted in the harm of others. There's precedent for it, whether you think it's anti-freedom or not.

Moon said:

I honestly don't care what other countries do. I like being a citizen of the United States and have no desire to be a subject under some other government. I have no interest in ceding any of the freedoms I enjoy to any government.

Click to expand...

You should care because our government is going to compare and contrast what other countries are doing when it eventually comes to change our laws. It's not a matter of if it comes, but when, and I prefer to be educated about it. Eventually massacres will be so frequent and costly that they will act.

Re: Would you agree with National Conceal Carry & Open Carry and Universal Background Checks togethe

Northern Light said:

By their gun deaths per capita. But I live in a country where it's illegal to even point the muzzle of a gun at someone, regardless of the reason.

Click to expand...

That seems so straight forward doesn't it. But it isn't really, when you look more closely at the numbers. Or do you think Blacks kill more because Asian Americans cannot have guns? After all, that latter group compares more than favorably with countries of the type you hold up to emulate. Or how do you see the over half of gun death suicides? How do folks do it, where guns are less easily available? Say France? Or Japan?