RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Stop the Madness - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Stop the Madness Solve The Problem Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 13,824
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:22 PM

I have a sure fire proposal to reduce gun violence.

Two questions, how do lawyers get certified, how do doctors get certified ?

In order to carry a gun one should be tested and certified by the NRA. The sale of guns should be subject to NRA guidelines and approval.

No certification no gun, no approval no sale.

It's time to go on offense !

This post has been edited by Coach: 06 November 2017 - 10:28 PM

0

#2 User is offline   Weaseljd 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,438
  • Joined: 04-September 03

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:38 PM

View PostCoach, on 06 November 2017 - 10:28 PM, said:

I have a sure fire proposal to reduce gun violence.

Two questions, how do lawyers get certified, how do doctors get certified ?

In order to carry a gun one should be tested and certified by the NRA. The sale of guns should be subject to NRA guidelines and approval.

No certification no gun, no approval no sale.

It's time to go on offense !


Except there is no constitutional right to be a lawyer or a doctor, so a state is free to set up certification processes There is a Constitutional right to bear arms. I don't believe a "certification" process to own or buy a gun would or should pass Constitutional muster. I am a non gun owner - have never even fired one. But the Second Amendment is pretty darn clear. heck, I get the arguments for "sensible" gun control including background checks and not selling to people with mental health issues and all - it makes sense. But the moment the government requires this, or limits a right (without some adjudication or court order after due process restricting or withdrawing a Constitutional right), even these limits I believe should be struck down because the Second Amendment is pretty clear - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Want gun control, or background checks, or gun certification by the state or the NRA - you need to change the Constitution.
0

#3 User is online   Noclevermoniker 

  • Got Wiener?
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 14,515
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 06 November 2017 - 11:10 PM

View PostWeaseljd, on 06 November 2017 - 10:38 PM, said:

Except there is no constitutional right to be a lawyer or a doctor, so a state is free to set up certification processes There is a Constitutional right to bear arms. I don't believe a "certification" process to own or buy a gun would or should pass Constitutional muster. I am a non gun owner - have never even fired one. But the Second Amendment is pretty darn clear. heck, I get the arguments for "sensible" gun control including background checks and not selling to people with mental health issues and all - it makes sense. But the moment the government requires this, or limits a right (without some adjudication or court order after due process restricting or withdrawing a Constitutional right), even these limits I believe should be struck down because the Second Amendment is pretty clear - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Want gun control, or background checks, or gun certification by the state or the NRA - you need to change the Constitution.

Yep. None of my inalienable rights need certification in the affirmative. Only if I've done something to objectively warrant their curtailment. No one person, nor entity without recourse, should be able to curtail those rights.
0

#4 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 23,556
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 07 November 2017 - 08:25 AM

View PostCoach, on 06 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

I have a sure fire proposal to reduce gun violence.

Two questions, how do lawyers get certified, how do doctors get certified ?

In order to carry a gun one should be tested and certified by the NRA. The sale of guns should be subject to NRA guidelines and approval.

No certification no gun, no approval no sale.

It's time to go on offense !


DISAGREE 100%, Licensing fees and classes will not protect you against a moron with a weapon. A sane person with a weapon will. You want to surrender a right to a entity that can be bought out by the left, then you go ahead and do so. I will not surrender MY RIGHT.
0

#5 User is offline   LongKnife 

  • Don't start none, won't be none.
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,842
  • Joined: 10-November 04

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:08 AM

View PostCoach, on 06 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

I have a sure fire proposal to reduce gun violence.

Two questions, how do lawyers get certified, how do doctors get certified ?

In order to carry a gun one should be tested and certified by the NRA. The sale of guns should be subject to NRA guidelines and approval.

No certification no gun, no approval no sale.

It's time to go on offense !

What other rights do we need to be certified for?
0

#6 User is offline   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,148
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 07 November 2017 - 10:30 AM

When the government doesn't follow it's own rules why add more??

Link
0

#7 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 13,824
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 07 November 2017 - 10:46 AM

I knew when the idea hit me that Constitutional issues were huge and therefore my pipe dream had no chance to become reality.

The NRA is the most credible and honest entity on guns in the country, its professionalism and honesty should be utilized. It would drive the anti- gun crazies further round the bend.

Any way it was worth a try.

I still know that those who know about gun safety should control guns. It's obvious that outlaws and mental deviants should never get within a mile of a gun.
0

#8 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,482
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 07 November 2017 - 11:37 AM

View PostCoach, on 06 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

In order to carry a gun one should be tested and certified by the NRA. The sale of guns should be subject to NRA guidelines and approval.


Is the NRA qualified to detect sociopaths? Some sociopaths are extremely intelligent and know how to pass psychological tests. I support background checks, but should they be based on past behavior or potential behavior? It's a tough question. Not all dangerous nutjobs are obvious and not all obvious nutjobs are dangerous. Who loses their Constitutional rights?

This post has been edited by Natural Selection: 07 November 2017 - 11:45 AM

0

#9 User is offline   Weaseljd 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,438
  • Joined: 04-September 03

Posted 07 November 2017 - 11:39 AM

View PostCoach, on 07 November 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:


I still know that those who know about gun safety should control guns. It's obvious that outlaws and mental deviants should never get within a mile of a gun.


Under the Constitution though we really cant prevent this either. I am not sure where under the constitution the power to strip a right away exists just because someone has a criminal record or mental health issues (though with mental health if someone has been ruled incompetent by a court, then yes, there are limits on their rights). I can see why we would want to do this, but sometimes just because something makes sense or is a good idea does not change the fact the solution is not Constitutional. There is a solution to this problem however, I am just not sure the American people and American industry are ready for the only step I believe could work.

Frankly, the only way to limit sales and make sure guns do not get into the hands of criminals and people with mental health issues or others who should not be owning a gun is for the gun industry itself to set up a check system it enforces. The government cannot limit your right to own a gun, and (I believe) under the Constitution it cant tell gun manufacturersthey cant make guns or sell guns (that's all prohibited action), but by the same token government cant force anyone to make or sell a product (Roberts was pretty clear on this point in his much reviled Obamacare decision). But private sellers can and should be able to limit to whom they sell. Remove civil rights claims against retailers for "refusing service" to give them the power to sell to whom they choose (current discrimination laws would potentially destroy this system I am advocating - another reason I don't this Americans would accept my solution), and then sellers can state that, you want to buy a gun, pass a background check that we design, and bring us proof you meet a minimum standard, and we will sell you a gun. Don't bring this proof, you don't get a gun. This is similar to the current system obviously, but avoids the constitutional issues because it does not involve government action. People will state that private sellers will just ignore this standard or cut corners to make a sale - but if the law is then changed to allow civil liability in personal injury/wrongful death suits against the seller (and manufacturer) of a firearm used in a crime that is purchased without the seller following the proper standard for obtaining background check information, see how fast retailers and manufacturers of firearms start making sure their own internal rules for a sale are followed (would apply to gun shows also - want a gun, bring your paperwork showing you are allowed to purchase one). Note - this liability against a manufacturer would only attach if the process for purchase was not followed. A legal purchase with proof the purchaser passed the private requirement for purchase would be a shield to liability. Also, a firearm obtained illegally would not subject a manufacturer to liability. But place the burden on the industry and not government for the process and your desire for "licensing" could come true. If the industry collectively stated it would not sell to anyone who had not passed an NRA approved gun ownership class and background check, private industry could do that and make it work. THAT would not be unconstitutional. And I think this self policing by the industry could work if financial litigation costs were a legitimate threat through civil lawsuits for failing to adhere to the industry standard. A government approach though is clearly Unconstitutional.
0

#10 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 13,824
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 07 November 2017 - 12:20 PM

View PostWeaseljd, on 07 November 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

Under the Constitution though we really cant prevent this either. I am not sure where under the constitution the power to strip a right away exists just because someone has a criminal record or mental health issues (though with mental health if someone has been ruled incompetent by a court, then yes, there are limits on their rights). I can see why we would want to do this, but sometimes just because something makes sense or is a good idea does not change the fact the solution is not Constitutional. There is a solution to this problem however, I am just not sure the American people and American industry are ready for the only step I believe could work.

Frankly, the only way to limit sales and make sure guns do not get into the hands of criminals and people with mental health issues or others who should not be owning a gun is for the gun industry itself to set up a check system it enforces. The government cannot limit your right to own a gun, and (I believe) under the Constitution it cant tell gun manufacturersthey cant make guns or sell guns (that's all prohibited action), but by the same token government cant force anyone to make or sell a product (Roberts was pretty clear on this point in his much reviled Obamacare decision). But private sellers can and should be able to limit to whom they sell. Remove civil rights claims against retailers for "refusing service" to give them the power to sell to whom they choose (current discrimination laws would potentially destroy this system I am advocating - another reason I don't this Americans would accept my solution), and then sellers can state that, you want to buy a gun, pass a background check that we design, and bring us proof you meet a minimum standard, and we will sell you a gun. Don't bring this proof, you don't get a gun. This is similar to the current system obviously, but avoids the constitutional issues because it does not involve government action. People will state that private sellers will just ignore this standard or cut corners to make a sale - but if the law is then changed to allow civil liability in personal injury/wrongful death suits against the seller (and manufacturer) of a firearm used in a crime that is purchased without the seller following the proper standard for obtaining background check information, see how fast retailers and manufacturers of firearms start making sure their own internal rules for a sale are followed (would apply to gun shows also - want a gun, bring your paperwork showing you are allowed to purchase one). Note - this liability against a manufacturer would only attach if the process for purchase was not followed. A legal purchase with proof the purchaser passed the private requirement for purchase would be a shield to liability. Also, a firearm obtained illegally would not subject a manufacturer to liability. But place the burden on the industry and not government for the process and your desire for "licensing" could come true. If the industry collectively stated it would not sell to anyone who had not passed an NRA approved gun ownership class and background check, private industry could do that and make it work. THAT would not be unconstitutional. And I think this self policing by the industry could work if financial litigation costs were a legitimate threat through civil lawsuits for failing to adhere to the industry standard. A government approach though is clearly Unconstitutional.



Thanks Weasel, perhaps my germ of an idea has legs after all. It's amazing what you can come up when your goal is to solve a problem while protecting rights.
0

#11 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 23,556
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 07 November 2017 - 12:31 PM

View PostCoach, on 07 November 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

I knew when the idea hit me that Constitutional issues were huge and therefore my pipe dream had no chance to become reality.

The NRA is the most credible and honest entity on guns in the country, its professionalism and honesty should be utilized. It would drive the anti- gun crazies further round the bend.

Any way it was worth a try.

I still know that those who know about gun safety should control guns. It's obvious that outlaws and mental deviants should never get within a mile of a gun.


The AMA controls doctors, we are short.

The government controls everything, and there are shortages.

You do not surrender your individual rights. That's the surest way to tyranny period.

When seconds count the police are minutes away. Be prepared.
0

#12 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,217
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 07 November 2017 - 06:04 PM

View PostWeaseljd, on 07 November 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

Under the Constitution though we really cant prevent this either. I am not sure where under the constitution the power to strip a right away exists just because someone has a criminal record or mental health issues (though with mental health if someone has been ruled incompetent by a court, then yes, there are limits on their rights). I can see why we would want to do this, but sometimes just because something makes sense or is a good idea does not change the fact the solution is not Constitutional. There is a solution to this problem however, I am just not sure the American people and American industry are ready for the only step I believe could work.


"Dead Men Tell No Tales" (And have no rights.)


I think most would be surprised at the answer, because it's not real obvious without knowing not just the law but the history of law.

The practice of removing certain civil rights from convicted felons (And the deranged) survives as one of the many parts of English Common Law that has been 'received' into the body of US law and state laws in every state except Louisiana either via state constitution or various "reception statutes".

Historically, there was a time in English law when all "High Crimes" - "Felonies" as we say today - were punishable by death. And, of course, a dead man can exercise no rights (Except the right to vote in Chicago, but that's a different matter.) As the penalties were relaxed, the felon was allowed to live but with the proviso that he STILL lost the right to exercise those same civil rights just as if he'd been executed. "Civil Death", (L: civiliter mortuus) as it was called, a concept that still exists to this day in English and American common law.

An example of a "reception statute" would be title 1, Chapter 2, Florida Statutes, which is still in effect in 2017:

2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.
óThe common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.
History.ós. 1, Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87.


As the US Constitution is silent on the topic of "Civil Death" vis-a-vis felons, the common law stands.
0

#13 User is offline   Dutch13 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,258
  • Joined: 02-May 06

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:49 PM

mjperry51 said:

1510068611[/url]' post='685462728']
When the government doesn't follow it's own rules why add more??

Link


+1
0

#14 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,545
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 08 November 2017 - 11:53 AM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 07 November 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

The AMA controls doctors, we are short.

The government controls everything, and there are shortages.

You do not surrender your individual rights. That's the surest way to tyranny period.

When seconds count the police are minutes away. Be prepared.

The AMA doesn't control medical doctors. MDs are licensed by the state they practice in. MDs can tell AMA to take a hike and nothing will happen to their ability to treat patients. AMA is a joke.
0

#15 User is offline   Dutch13 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,258
  • Joined: 02-May 06

Posted 08 November 2017 - 01:16 PM

View PostCoach, on 06 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

I have a sure fire proposal to reduce gun violence.

Two questions, how do lawyers get certified, how do doctors get certified ?

In order to carry a gun one should be tested and certified by the NRA. The sale of guns should be subject to NRA guidelines and approval.

No certification no gun, no approval no sale.

It's time to go on offense !


First, the nation would never have been created if it was not acknowledged that we already have a God given right to defend ourselves. Second, the left and the media thinks the NRA is worst organization on the planet. If you are trying to get liberals on board, they wouldn't accept the NRA.





0

#16 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 10,507
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 08 November 2017 - 01:24 PM

View PostDutch13, on 08 November 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

First, the nation would never have been created if it was not acknowledged that we already have a God given right to defend ourselves. Second, the left and the media thinks the NRA is worst organization on the planet. If you are trying to get liberals on board, they wouldn't accept the NRA.

I'll go you one better. Restrictions on automatic weapons are unconstitutional. As are restrictions on criminals buying guns. The Constitution does not say "Shall not be abridged...unless you think you've got a really good reason."
0

#17 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,385
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 08 November 2017 - 05:31 PM

View PostSeverian, on 08 November 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

I'll go you one better. Restrictions on automatic weapons are unconstitutional. As are restrictions on criminals buying guns. The Constitution does not say "Shall not be abridged...unless you think you've got a really good reason."



Funny thing really, until 1969 it was a Universal belief that everyone no matter whom they where had a right to defend themselves.
People where sold an idea that passing a law forbidding legal gun ownership by felons would cut gun murders down. Not only did it not do this, it essentially created a black for firearms over night. It also ushered in the modern age of gun control.

Guns have been available since before we where even a nation, the poor neighborhoods of today where by in large just as poor in the 1930's, but for some reason they where a lot safer. The problem the anti gun left has with admitting this is that it means accepting the fact that it's a people problem and laws won't do a damn thing to change this. When people are more feral animal then they are human there is no piece of legislation which will change this.

When psychopaths are not locked up they will find a way to act out their twisted fantasies, if not with a gun then with something else.
You can make it harder for them and call that a victory, but a true victory is when they are no longer in a position to cause harm. There is no %100 way to do this, but sure as hell recent events have shown there where warning signs and meds DO PLAY A PART. Problem is not only is there huge $ $ $ in the latter, there are a hell of lot of people who do not want to accept this. Maybe because they themselves are on these meds and do not want to face life without them, or maybe because they in some way make money of it. Either way, if they truly care they would demand answers.

Oki
0

#18 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 24,435
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 08 November 2017 - 05:56 PM

View PostCoach, on 07 November 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

I knew when the idea hit me that Constitutional issues were huge and therefore my pipe dream had no chance to become reality.

The NRA is the most credible and honest entity on guns in the country, its professionalism and honesty should be utilized. It would drive the anti- gun crazies further round the bend.

Any way it was worth a try.

I still know that those who know about gun safety should control guns. It's obvious that outlaws and mental deviants should never get within a mile of a gun.

Nope.

The NRA is not.

The GOA is.

The NRA are the ones who actually wrote the gun control acts of 1934, 1938 and 1968, the "instant background check" (which isn't instant), along with the main provisions of the Brady Bill and many other infringements upon our second amendment rights.

The GOA made the NRA drop a lot of their recent cave ins to the gun grabbers especially on banning ownership to former military and those who ever sought any psychological counseling.


http://www.pubtheo.c...ge.asp?PID=1767


This post has been edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger: 08 November 2017 - 06:18 PM

0

#19 User is offline   Landoostic 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Registered Guest
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 11-November 17

Posted 11 November 2017 - 03:03 PM

The US Constition stops the Federal govt from interfering with Gun Rights, but it doesnít stop States from interfering unless a Stateís Constition also protects the Right. States can regulate gun ownership but itís not in their best interest to do so. States still have the Sovereign Right to protect themselves, even if itís against the Federal govt and they need an armed citizenry to do that.

People need to be reminded or informed that the US Constition applies to the Federal govt, not the States, unless something in it specific says so.

The 14th Amendment doesnít change that, otherwise State Constitions would have no force and effect and would be null and void.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users