Our Own Presidential Poll

[bafsu92]

Bafsu, you are dreaming if you think you can legislate good sense or good safety practices.
It's been tried without success before.
How often is drinking a factor in car accidents ? They have a lot of laws about that too.

I don't feel like you can legislate good sense and if I thought I'd see no restrictions or limitations in my lifetime then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately popular opinion or at least media driven opinion is going the other way. Like it or not short of armed revolution we're heading for more restrictions, not less. Seeing as that is pretty much the case I think a Nationally accepted, state maintained standardized licensing system it the best compromise. My point there are going to be some restrictions so why not have the least restrictions possible while still satisfying the largest percentage of both sides.

[bafsu92]

Bafsu, I'm sure that I'm especially sensitive after a lifetime of California regulations and I'm not attacking your ideas. Seeking training is  immensely valuable and responsible. I agree on all of the idiots at the gun shows and bozos who mishandle guns, but I see those idiots carrying all over the place too. I don't like to take my 7 year old daughter to the gun shows either. I just think that we'll have idiots who will misuse and mishandle guns no matter what and we're going to just have to prosecute them.

I'll swallow a shall-issue permit system any day, over CA's "may-issue if you can prove that a killer is chasing you right now" permit.

Tom, are there any decent candidates putting their names in the hat in your opinion? My endorsement of Romney was only pertaining to economic problems that our Country is facing. His flipping all over on guns drives me crazy, but I hope a man can come to his senses on them. An acceptance that guns aren't the problem and that crime and violence are societal comes slower to some. Maybe they don't try to understand that issue when it doesn't mean as much to them as it does to us. RINO, who's electable that is strictly party line anymore and do we accept any party-line Koolaid anyway. I was a big fan of Reagan and he may have been the most to the right of all candidates in my voting life, but I still find that he was softer on some issues than I would have liked. I'm still waiting for a real candidate to step up. I do like Palin somewhat. She's at least way cooler than Hillary.

Not Tom but from a gunowner standpoint I think our best presidential candidate is Jim DeMint. GOA says he is seriously considering a run and he's rated A+ on gun issues and isn't and does not desire to be a career politician.

[bafsu92]

First, a comparison to driving is inexact, there is no constitutional provision for "the right to drive".

Incidents with guns will happen....last I checked the sky was not falling.  I am unwilling to trade freedom for a terribly small and insignificant increase in safety.  Anyone born before the 60's, and some after that from rural areas, remember death sentences from disease, stroke, heart attack, etc....we live in a safe society.

Prosecute ND's and make it public....this may serve as a deterrent to irresponsible wannabees who will kill you while driving and texting instead.

I agree and knew someone would bring that point however I'd be willing to bet if automobiles existed when the constitution was written then they very well could've been mentioned in the same way. I used that as a reference since aside from the constitutional argument both already need some type of license to operate (carry) yet you only (in most places) have to show proficiency in one. Anyone who thinks that all infringements will suddenly go away is living in a dream world. They're already here and have been getting worse rather than better. Rather than making them all go away at once lets steadily change the rules and make them progressively better so the other side has a little easier time swallowing it. Unless you want to go the route of another civil war style revolution we are not going to get to a place of absolutely no infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not looking to start a revolution but would gladly sign on if it happened. Until then why not try to make things better a step at a time?

[Solus]

First, a comparison to driving is inexact, there is no constitutional provision for "the right to drive".

We need to get that kind of thinking out of our heads.  We are giving the government control of rights that they do not have under the Constitution.

As I have said before, there IS a constitutional guarantee for "the right to drive" and all other human activity that is not precluded by the Constitution.  It is the 9th Amendment.  

 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Driving IS a Right and not a privilege.  It cannot be a privilege as the government has no privileges to grant The People unless given that authority by The People in the Constitution......unless we allow them to usurp that power by complacent thinking.

The SCOTUS has ruled that the government does have the power to regulate a Right.  Drivers Licensing is an example of that where it is pretty much done correctly.

One downside is that should the Powers That Be decide to restrict who can drive for the wrong reasons, they can make the requirements unattainable.  This is a strong concern with testing for 2A rights.

Another downside is that any testing/certification system will also include a licensing aspect.  This allows creating a "database" of those licensed which is, in effect, a registry of those who wish to exercise their 2A rights.  

Even if the NRA (or pick your favorite Pro-2A organization) was responsible for the testing requirements and the testing so they would remain fair, there would still be the registry that would be misused.

[Solus]

I agree and knew someone would bring that point however I'd be willing to bet if automobiles existed when the constitution was written then they very well could've been mentioned in the same way. I used that as a reference since aside from the constitutional argument both already need some type of license to operate (carry) yet you only (in most places) have to show proficiency in one. Anyone who thinks that all infringements will suddenly go away is living in a dream world. They're already here and have been getting worse rather than better. Rather than making them all go away at once lets steadily change the rules and make them progressively better so the other side has a little easier time swallowing it. Unless you want to go the route of another civil war style revolution we are not going to get to a place of absolutely no infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not looking to start a revolution but would gladly sign on if it happened. Until then why not try to make things better a step at a time?

Again, The 9th Amendment.

Consider this.  

The founding fathers would NEVER give the government the power to regulate the primary means of transportation for The People.  NO restrictions on the use of horses, wagon or buggys would have been tolerated and while this right to transportation and mobility is not enumerated, it is a Right and protected by the Constitution in the 9th Amendment.

BTW, has anyone considered that the 'push' for public transportation is a direct assault on the Right to private transportation?

[Sponsor]

[PegLeg45]

We need to get that kind of thinking out of our heads.  We are giving the government control of rights that they do not have under the Constitution.

As I have said before, there IS a constitutional guarantee for "the right to drive" and all other human activity that is not precluded by the Constitution.  It is the 9th Amendment.  

 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Driving IS a Right and not a privilege.  It cannot be a privilege as the government has no privileges to grant The People unless given that authority by The People in the Constitution......unless we allow them to usurp that power by complacent thinking.

The SCOTUS has ruled that the government does have the power to regulate a Right.  Drivers Licensing is an example of that where it is pretty much done correctly.

One downside is that should the Powers That Be decide to restrict who can drive for the wrong reasons, they can make the requirements unattainable.  This is a strong concern with testing for 2A rights.

Another downside is that any testing/certification system will also include a licensing aspect.  This allows creating a "database" of those licensed which is, in effect, a registry of those who wish to exercise their 2A rights.  

Even if the NRA (or pick your favorite Pro-2A organization) was responsible for the testing requirements and the testing so they would remain fair, there would still be the registry that would be misused.

Again, The 9th Amendment.

Consider this.   

The founding fathers would NEVER give the government the power to regulate the primary means of transportation for The People.  NO restrictions on the use of horses, wagon or buggys would have been tolerated and while this right to transportation and mobility is not enumerated, it is a Right and protected by the Constitution in the 9th Amendment.

BTW, has anyone considered that the 'push' for public transportation is a direct assault on the Right to private transportation?

+1

I have made the same (almost verbatim) case over steaks and beer several times in the past.   

[tombogan03884]

First, a comparison to driving is inexact, there is no constitutional provision for "the right to drive".

Incidents with guns will happen....last I checked the sky was not falling.  I am unwilling to trade freedom for a terribly small and insignificant increase in safety. Anyone born before the 60's, and some after that from rural areas, remember death sentences from disease, stroke, heart attack, etc....we live in a safe society.

Prosecute ND's and make it public....this may serve as a deterrent to irresponsible wannabees who will kill you while driving and texting instead.

2 comments on Rastus's post, first off, The comparison between driving and gun's, in this case, is valid.
The reason being that the subject was not based on the Right/Privilege debate, simply on the fact that irresponsible use of either one can get some one killed. Despite the requirement for "Drivers Ed", Licensing, and wide spread campaigns against dangerous driving practices, (drinking, texting etc. ) cars are still the number 1 cause of death in the US.  
Another point, this debate on further restrictions on law abiding citizens ignores the fact that while gun ownership has sky rocketed in recent years the rate of violent crime continues to fall. I have a question for those who would surrender still more of their rights for the illusion of safety, haven't you noticed that while crimes short of murder, or armed robbery seldom make the news an ND in in East Overshoe Wisc. gets broadcast world wide ? Could this be because it is in fact a fairly rare occurrence being hyped by the anti gun media ?

My 2nd comment on Rastus's post is that I think the bold line is dead on the mark.

Again, The 9th Amendment.

Consider this.  

The founding fathers would NEVER give the government the power to regulate the primary means of transportation for The People.  NO restrictions on the use of horses, wagon or buggys would have been tolerated and while this right to transportation and mobility is not enumerated, it is a Right and protected by the Constitution in the 9th Amendment.

BTW, has anyone considered that the 'push' for public transportation is a direct assault on the Right to private transportation?

I had not thought of it in those terms, I had been considering it exactly the opposite, that like good roads, facilitating public transport was as much a part of Govt as regulating the safety of Rail Roads. The history of this is that after WWI the Auto companies began buying up the public transit systems that existed in every city and most large towns. They then dismantled them to boost car sales.

FuzDaddy, YES !!! Pawlenty looks good, Bachman, Cain has officially announced, Rick Santorum has been sniffing around NH, Christie and Perry are both being encouraged to run as well. There are a couple RINO's trying to get in on the act, some former NM Gov and another guy, both I never heard of before, otherwise, leave out the retreads like Romney, Paul, Newt, and Rudy G. and it's a pretty good field.

[bafsu92]

Another downside is that any testing/certification system will also include a licensing aspect.  This allows creating a "database" of those licensed which is, in effect, a registry of those who wish to exercise their 2A rights.  

Even if the NRA (or pick your favorite Pro-2A organization) was responsible for the testing requirements and the testing so they would remain fair, there would still be the registry that would be misused.

Agreed, and it's the registry part that scares/concerns me the most. At the same time though you're delusional if you think you aren't already in some "gun owners database" within the government. Unless you have purchased every gun you own through private sales or other back channels, (never had a background check called in) have never had any type of firearms license be it CCW, Security etc. then you are already in somebody's database that the government has access to. I'm not even talking about filling out 4473's which is another topic of debate. Sure they stay in the shop but BATFE can come in and look at them (and even though they're not supposed to copy/scan, they do) any time they wish. Furthermore if a shop goes out of business or an FFL is surrendered like I did with mine during the Clinton days those 4473's get turned in to the BATFE for "storage".

I recently received a visit from a BATFE federale (about 3 months ago) who was asking why I've had so many purchases the last year. He was implying I was running guns to Mexico or something. The only way they'd know the number of transactions I'd made is because they track the background check data. He asked to see how many of these guns I still had, if I had bills of sale etc. I told him I was simply a collector and admirer of various firearms and I liked to buy and trade as a hobby. He then said with my volume I should get an FFL at which point I laughed and said "you're the same agency who told me I needed to give up my FFL because I was using it as a means to a hobby or to obtain discounted firearms and was not making a concerted attempt to earn a profit as a firearms dealer". I asked him which is it. He couldn't answer me then but asked to come in and see my collection and any records. I told him I'd be glad to show him what he was asking for as soon as he returned with a warrant. I haven't heard a word since.

I may be an extreme case since I've had at least 80 call-ins in the last year or so but you can be guaranteed if you've obtained any firearm legally from a FFL dealer then you're already in federal databases and are a known gun owner. There is no hiding from the Feds. I was at least hoping through my idea the database would at least be maintained on a state level.

[Herknav]

Fine, but you also have to take a test to vote. You have to score over 75% on a civics test to prove your (you're) competent to vote .

Also, if you miss spell (misspell) more than 2 words in a single post you lose your 1st amendment rights.

I don't usually play grammar police, but I couldn't resist in light of your last sentence.  BTW, do commas count?  You missed one after "post".    

Seriously, you have a good point.