Question of the Day: Does TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia Represent Gun Owners at Large?

The short answer is “no.” Here’s my thinking. My impression is that the folks who comment here, and probably many who read and do not comment, are for the most part extremely responsible and safe people. Although there’s some disagreement on things like home carry, for example, everyone seems to agree on the need for training and adherence to the 4 Rules of Gun Safety. The problem starts when you guys begin to extrapolate from that and apply these characteristics to gun owners at large. This is just not the case . . .

Your average gun owner suffers from the same apathy that most people suffer from. Many of them, unlike the Armed Intelligentsia, allow their vices for drink, drugs, anger, absent-mindedness and other things to interfere with their ability to be truly safe and responsible. And like most people, the average gun owner has the idea that “it’ll never happen to me,” just like any average Joe. This blog does a wonderful job of trying to help guys like that snap out of it. I admire you for it even though I many times don’t agree with the extremity of your position.

So, when I propose restrictions on guns and you guys scream and yell that you don’t want them and don’t need them, you’re making the mistake of thinking all gun owners are like you. Here are my ideas. Please try to keep an open mind.

1. licensing of all gun owners after written and psychological testing
2. registration of all guns to a licensed gun owner followed by renewal after 3 months and yearly thereafter – the renewal would require producing the gun and its paperwork
3. closure of the private sale loophole by requiring background checks on all transfers and transference of the registration from one licensed owner to another
4. safe storage laws and severe punishment if a kid or a thief too easily gets one of your guns

Leaving aside for a moment the obvious question of implementation, whether it would be necessary to register already owned firearms or only newly bought ones, you can see, being open-minded as you are, that straw purchasing would all but disappear (number 2) and theft would go way down (number 4). Combined with depriving criminals of the opportunity of buying guns without a background check (number 3), we would already have taken a big bite out of the gun flow from law-abiding gun owners to criminal gun owners. Point number 1 would help identify some of the Jared Loughners and the Seung-Hui Chos before they act.

The best part is that obedience to these 4 requirements would not disarm anyone who is safe and responsible. And since the tens-of-millions of average gun owners are not criminals, they would go along. They are the guys who inadvertently allow their guns to slip into the black market. They’re the ones who leave their guns lying around for kids or thieves the find. They’re the ones who sell their weapons at gun shows and on the internet without doing the right due diligence. The Armed Intelligentsia doesn’t need anybody’s help to do the right thing, but tens-of-million of your fellow gun owners do.

That’s my presentation, briefly stated. Do you agree that the AI is not representative of gun owners at large? How could you possibly find fault with my proposals?

[Mike runs the Mikeb302000 blog]

330 Responses to Question of the Day: Does TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia Represent Gun Owners at Large?

  1. avatarChas says:

    All I have to say to this is….. LOL.

    • avatarPaul says:

      This has got to be troll, right? Are we having fun yet?

      • avatarPaul says:

        You know, I’d go along with these proposals, *IF* we could also require literacy / rhetoric / logic / political / psychological testing before allowing morons to exercise their right to free speech. And I’ll do all the testing, thank you very much. Great idea — thanks for contributing. ;-)

      • avatarrosignol says:

        No, he’s serious.

        He’s also either oblivious to how administrative barriers have been used to effectively ban firearms ownership in Chicago (technically possible, but the required paperwork is never available), or is being disingenuous.

  2. I don’t like the requirement to renew your registration. I understand registering a new firearm and also having some sort of papertrail when transferring a firearm through private selling, along with a background check which accompanies every new firearm purchase. Once the firearm is owned however I don’t think having to renew individual firearm registrations is neccessary and will be abused. States will charge more money than it actually costs to perform the renewals, plus what benefit does this actually provide? I see renewals as a non-value added process. Oh so you still own that gun, oh okay give me $100 every year. That sounds more like a tax unless you can provide a real benefit.

    • The important part is sales and transfers. If the firearm has not changed hands then I should not be required to fill out any paperwork. If it’s stolen, you are required to report a stolen firearm.

      • But, that wouldn’t thwart the straw purchasers. The idea is when someone buys a gun they know they have to show it and the paperwork in the future.

        No more straw purchasing.

        • avatarBill says:

          You’re DREAMING! You are seriously delusional on this one. If you can’t see the obvious ways around this, you are still in the gate.

        • avatarWill says:

          Straw purchasers, could potentially retrieve the firearms long enough to validate through your scheme MikeBnumbers, and then return to the hands of the criminals.

        • You’re not paying attention, Will. You’re just disagreeing.

          Under my system, the purchaser would have to be in possession of the gun after three months and again at the one year mark.

  3. avatarcounihan says:

    Mr Farago, you are aware that April Fool’s Day was two days ago right?

    • avatarRuffRidr says:

      That was my thinking. FLAME DELETED As for his list, it’s rubbish. Holes have been poked in his arguments a thousand times.

      • avatarDerek says:

        “Holes have been poked in his arguments a thousand times.”

        A half dozen different articles by Bruce come to mind.

  4. avatarGreg in Allston says:

    FLAME DELETED And exactly what do you personally know about gun owners that isn’t skewed by your bizarre perceptions of the world at large? SHEESH.

    Robert, you’re letting Mikey make my head explode. Why are you doing that? Please make it stop. PLEASE!!

  5. avatarJS III says:

    When did the new york times buy TTAG. Registration is step 1 towards confiscation. Period. Safe storage laws like those in DC make owninh a gun burdensom to otherwise lawful gun. Keeping guns locked up and disassembled leaves gun owners defenseless.

    • “Registration is step 1 towards confiscation.” Not in America, not in the 21st century.

      Either you’re paranoid if you really believe that or you’re trying to be slick and use that excuse to not admit it’s a good plan to stop straw purchasing.

      • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

        “Not in America, not in the 21st century.”
        —–
        Ah, the old “it couldn’t happen here/now” argument. History isn’t going to back you up on that one.

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        Yes in America. It happened in CA with their “assault weapons.” 21st Century has no relevance as history repeats itself.

        I would worry less about straw purchases and worry more about stolen firearms. Just as most LE agencies. Shotguns, rifles, and submachine guns go missing from trunks, racks, and trunk lockers all the time. Heck, LAPD lost a ton of firearms at a training site.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Here in Orlando, there have been several instances of LEO weapons being stolen/misplaced.

          Late 2006, some teenagers stole a silenced submachine gun, a .308 black rifle, and a .45 from a Orange County Sheriff SWAT team member’s unmarked SUV.

          In 2007, three AR’s were stolen from police cars, prompting a rule (that didn’t last) that all AR’s had to be stored at the station, not in the car.

          The Orlando Police Chief’s Sig 9mm was stolen from her car on February 27th of last year. It was a month before that story hit the papers, and that was due to a tipster, not by free admission. That gun has not been recovered.

          It was reported on January 30 of this year that an AR, a Remington shotgun and some ammo was stolen from an OPD officer’s car sometime between 1/23-1/29. The car was supposedly locked and alarmed. Neither weapon has been recovered.

          In both of the last two instances, no disciplinary action was taken against the officer.

  6. avatarcaffeinated says:

    I find fault with the following points:

    (1) This is the same as any written exam required to vote (ala Jim Crow)
    (2) This is not only an unnecessary burden to gun owners but government as well. This also ridiculous for anyone with a larger collection and could be argued a civil rights violation at best.
    (3) A few states already do this. It is unnecessary and only acts as another way to discourage firearms ownership. Most guns recovered at crime scenes are in fact stolen NOT privately purchased.
    (4) I understand keeping them safe from children, but how about teaching firearms safety at a young age? As it is my firearm and my property, criminals have no business stealing them (and surprised, it is already illegal).

    All your proposals have a central theme of discouraging firearms ownership by making it a significant burden to legally acquire one. If this sounds familiar this same tactic was used by racist governments to deny blacks the right to vote with literacy tests and taxing.

    The Bill of Rights is just that; inherent rights to the individual. Instead of more government interference and regulation, there should be more emphasis placed on personal responsibility. The more government “coddling” of the general public, the less personal responsibility you will find as the general population assumes the governing body is responsible for everything.

    I disagree with your points and find your proposal unacceptable and a violation of my civil rights if enacted.

    • avatarRon says:

      Thank you caffeinated!
      You said exactly what I would have, eliminating my need to respond.
      And I really,really did not want to.

    • Your number 3 rebuff means what, that since most are not privately purchased, we just shouldn’t worry about those that are?

      Your number 4 point means what, we should teach kids about guns and then leave then lying around the house? Safe storage saves lives and prevents gun flow. The obvious fact is too many of your fellow law-abiding gun owners don’t have the common sense to do this on their own and need to be constrained by the government.

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        I’m really not that worried about the privately purchased ones. You are correct.

        My brother and I were taught firearms safety at a young age and NO the firearms were not locked up. They weren’t exactly lying around either. Guess what? None of us shot each other nor did we go on a school shooting spree. I can think of at least three other kids at my elementary school that had a similar upbringing with firearms. They are all alive and healthy today.

        I understand you can’t ban guns so you are willing to chisel away at any gun rights we have.

      • avatarBill says:

        Yes, Mike that is EXACTLY what we should do. In my school years, we actually had gun safety training in grade school and we actually were allowed to bring guns to school during hunting season. My parents left loaded guns in house all the time as did most of my friend’s parents. You know what happened? NOTHING! We all respected our parents and firearms and we didn’t touch them without permission. Maybe you should come up with a list of how we should license parents next.

        More constraint by government, really? Yea, that’s just what we need, more government. In case you haven’t noticed, the monstrous government is the root cause of most of the serious problems we face today. Your collectivism is showing Mikey.

  7. avatarA Regular says:

    FYI, if this statist elitist controller gets another post on this site, I’m done reading this site. Freedom of speech and all that, but I’ll take my freedom and walk.

    • avatarCharles says:

      I think you’re looking at this the wrong way. Here’s your chance to take this guy’s arguments apart. If you don’t agree with him then articulate why and look at it as an exercise in mental preparedness. Remember, lots (not most) of people agree with Mike.

      • avatarRon says:

        Charles, this is not the first chance.
        It’s been done before ( hundreds of times), to no avail.

    • avatarben says:

      Why not refute the OP’s points rather than attack him personally? Comments like this help to support his argument.

      • avatarRuffRidr says:

        ben, if you’ve been around here for very long you’ll know that MikeB has posted his list dozens of times to various articles. These points have been addressed over and over again. At what point does it become trolling for attention and web hits? I think we have passed that point with him.

        • Ruff, I could turn that around on you. I’ve told you these things over and over again and you STILL don’t get it. What’s wrong with you, man?

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          What’s NOT wrong with him is he believes in the Bill of Rights. Your post shows that you do not.

        • avatarRuffRidr says:

          Huh? How is that turning it around on me? You post the same things over and over and over again. I don’t agree with them, and that makes me the troll?

          Look, to be clear I am fine with you posting your ideas. But your problem is that you totally blow off any criticism of your ideas. You typically don’t respond to the points people make on your ideas. Specific questions on implementation are ignored. And then you post the exact same things again. And again. And again. I’ve long gotten past the point where I try to engage you in any kind of meaningful debate. I don’t think that you are interested in that, and it appears that others in this blog entry are coming to the same conclusion.

        • avatarNR says:

          [crickets]

  8. avatarbontai Joe says:

    Your proposals generate lists that allow politicians to then order the police to go from house to house and collect all weapons. Your proposals are almost an exact blueprint of what happened in the UK and in Australia. You say it won’t happen? Senator Pelosi is ON RECORD as saying she would like to get every gun out of private hands, as is Senator Schumer, and many others. I can’t believe how niave you are to not believe that every plan for confiscation begins with the exact layout you describe. We gun owners have seen it happen many times, in many countries.

  9. avatarMoonshine7102 says:

    I’ll address some “points” individually:

    “Your average gun owner suffers from the same apathy that most people suffer from.”
    —–
    Interesting. Right from the get-go you assume your fellow man is dumber and less capable than yourself.

    “1. licensing of all gun owners after written and psychological testing”
    —–
    Certainly. As soon as you get all journalists, bloggers, preachers, community organizers, and petitioners to agree to licensing and testing, we gun owners will happily agree to the same. Since I’m sure you agree that the equal protection clause really does mean “equal”, there should be no problem with this. Right, Michael?

    “2. registration of all guns to a licensed gun owner followed by renewal after 3 months and yearly thereafter – the renewal would require producing the gun and its paperwork”
    —–
    Again, why not? Just get everyone to consent to the registration of every computer, radio, television, microphone, pen, pencil, notepad, religious text, pulpit, mp3 player, telephone, modem, and cable connection. If you can pull that off, I’m certain we gun owners would be happy to follow suit.

    “3. closure of the private sale loophole by requiring background checks on all transfers and transference of the registration from one licensed owner to another”
    —–
    Of course. But first you’ll need to do the same for all private transfers of private property between law-abiding private citizens. After that, come talk to us.

    “4. safe storage laws and severe punishment if a kid or a thief too easily gets one of your guns”
    —–
    Perfectly fine. We will, of course, need to do the same for kitchen knives, hand tools, motor vehicles, swimming pools, and anything else that kills 600 people or more here in the United States. Gotta be thorough.

    “Leaving aside for a moment the obvious question of implementation”
    —–
    Which is another way of saying, “I know these will never come to pass.”

    “How could you possibly find fault with my proposals?”
    —–
    I believe I’ve answered this question, but here it is in black and white: your proposals would constitute an undue infringement on any constitutionally-protected right. The only reason you think them “reasonable” is your personal bias against the right they would infringe upon.

  10. avatarRon says:

    I have to admit, I did learn something from this post.
    From now on I’m going to take notice of who posted BEFORE I start to read.

  11. avatarCurzen says:

    Is this a guest column written by someone at msnbc?

  12. avatarMakattak says:

    I understand your ideas. I reject them because this is a matter of Rights. The right to self-defense (upon which the right to keep and bear arms is based) must be sacrosanct.

    However, even discounting that, I reject your premise. Your premise is: further restricions on the law abiding will decrease the supply of guns to criminals. This may be the case. This is unimportant, though.

    The problem for your argument that experience from around the world does not indicate that a smaller supply of guns leads to less criminality, whether it be murder, theft, or assault. (Yes, some countries with tighter gun laws have a lower murder rate than the United States. That is an apples to oranges comparison. The best comparison is the same country before and after those gun laws. Those statistics do not favor your premise.)

    So unless you think that someone who is murdered with a gun is worse than someone who is murdered with a knife/club/vehicle/rusty spoon, there is absolutely no benefit to your proposed laws.

    So, on an absolute Rights basis, I must disagree. But, even if I accept your premise that we must strive for maximum safety and decreased criminality, your ideas are faulty.

    Criminals are not criminal because of the ease of access to guns. That plays no role in their decision. Disarming (or inhibiting the exercise of self-defense as you propose) the populace will make it easier for criminals to prey upon the weak.

    A firearm allows an 80 year old woman to conteract an attack from a man in the prime of his life. Firearms can be used for evil, but given the fact that most violent crime is done by healthy, strong, young men, the balance of utility of firearms is towards decreasing crime, not increasing it. Healthy, strong, young men don’t need arms to prey on the weak. The weak need them to protect themselves. (Which is likely why countries with more restrictive gun laws eventually see increases in crime.)

  13. avatarMichael B says:

    “4. safe storage laws and severe punishment if a kid or a thief too easily gets one of your guns”

    I suppose that “too easily” would be defined by politicians who I trust about as far as I can throw them. I thoroughly enjoy your punish the victim mentality, Mike. Very progressive. I suppose that the next thing you’ll be proposing is that we fine women who get raped for having worn clothes that were too revealing?

    • Well clearly being raped is the fault of the woman, since if she just took the Brady Campaign’s advise and induced vomiting all over herself she would be found to be less desirable and the criminal would have no choice but be compelled to stop his devious act. A clear strategy to avoid harm.

      • avatarRon says:

        I’ve meet some punks who would love that strategy, believing it was they who induced the vomiting.

    • avatarRon says:

      GEEZE Michael!
      Don’t give him any ideas.

    • Not punish the victim, punish the guilty. If you leave a gun under your pillow and a neighbor kid finds it and blows his head off, you are not the victim.

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        The neighbor’s kid shouldn’t be in your room rooting around. Sorry MikeB, personal responsibility. Breaking into a house is already illegal.

        • avatarDerek says:

          I like that he would blame the gun owner, via a tenuous connection, loooong before he’d blame the kid or even the kids parents. The same parents who didn’t bother to teach the kid not to B&E or, Heaven forbid, firearm safety.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        “If you leave a gun under your pillow and a neighbor kid finds it and blows his head off, you are not the victim.”

        “The neighbor’s kid shouldn’t be in your room rooting around. Breaking into a house is already illegal.”

        I believe that’s what’s referred to as a “self-correcting problem.”

  14. avatarAlexander says:

    Ok, here, in Russia – we have all this regulations.
    What’s the difference? The same crime rate among gun owners – lower than 0.1%. And 4 times higher murder rate per entire population.
    If you ask me – there’s no correlation between gun ownership and crime rates at all… The only thing ‘gun control’ means – is a control. Not ‘crime control’ or ‘violence prevention’ – just control. And yes – FBI reports show us – that assault with knifes and blunt objects left serious wounded victims 4 times more likely. If you look up a bit – you can see some coincidence there…
    And i don’t suppose that to be stabbed to death is going to have some difference.
    You wanna fight against crime? Try to look at criminals at all.

  15. avatarSPEMacl618 says:

    While I disagree wholeheartedly with Mike’s post, minus the fact that the AI are for sure not your average gun owner, it is nice to see dialogue between the two ends of the spectrum in regards to gun rights.

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      If by “dialogue” you mean the conflict of facts versus emotional argument, I suppose.

    • avatarRuffRidr says:

      If only MikeB were looking for dialogue. If you want to see the kind of dialogue MikeB prefers then by all means head on over to his blog. Please take notice of the dialogue that his coblogger Democommie uses, often resorting to childish name calling and other inflammatory rhetoric. Also, notice the moderation system in place. Only approved messages make it through the filter. If Mike is so interested in dialogue, why does he continue to keep bloggers like this around? Why the limits on what others (but not cobloggers) post?

      • You should take your own advice, Ruff.
        Your own input on this thread contributes nothing, all you have are personal attacks against me. You try too hard too often to convince the others how bad I am.

        • avatarRuffRidr says:

          This isn’t a personal attack. I’m asking others to check for themselves and make up their own mind. Are you denying anything that I have posted in the above message? It’s plain as day to see that your blog is not friendly to gun owners and is not encouraging dialogue. There is no convincing that I need to do.

  16. avatarKirk says:

    One fly in the ointment: concerted attempts not just to criminalize gun ownership, but make it an illness requiring treatment.

    Psychological testing for people desiring to own or carry a gun, IMO, will be debased to always conclude derangement by definition, with its own ICD-9 code.

    You want a gun? You must be sick.

  17. I see what you did there with the picture for the article, nice change.

    • Was there a change of picture? I thought that sexy chick was Robert’s idea of a joke. I’ve questioned his use of these soft pornographic images on the best gun blog around. I think it’s wrong, and it’s in violation of one of his New Year’s resolutions.

      • It was changed to the hot chick. It was a boring picture of guy at a gun show with his face blurred. A clear upgrade and I’m sure this one got more 1st clicks lol.

  18. avatarWW Paul says:

    To steal the old joke “Debating with MikeB is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. Sooner or later you realize the pig likes it.”

    I’m glad we have a Constitution to protect me from him.

  19. avatarcz82mak says:

    Umm, No. That is all.

  20. avatarI_Like_Pie says:

    This entire article is garbage and out of touch with anyone….much less gun owners.

  21. avatarold and scarred says:

    reasonable for whom? like locks, agreements are for honest people. we ‘might’ agree that some ‘restrictions’ are useful but how will those who come after us manage them? Sorry, i do NOT have confidence in ANY government to do what is best for the populace, but will always do best to keep them in power/control, neither did our founders. i remember what happened to Class 3 weapons, when ‘some restrictions’ were implemented AND acquiesce by the NRA, each group of government officials pushed the restrictions further & further, way past ‘reasonable’. kumbaya anyone?

  22. avatarFrank says:

    Absolutely not. No 1 group can represent us all. We all have different reasons for owning firearms. Protection, hunting, safety, business, and yes even some as a fashion statement, and lots of other reasons. With all that, no one group can represent all of us.Our needs, our desires, our reasons for owning.

  23. avatargirlswithguns says:

    1. licensing of all gun owners after written and psychological testing

    I’d like to see written and psychological testing of anyone wanting to post on TTAG. :)

    Seriously, these proposals can only make sense to people who assume that everyone thinks the same way they do. In this case, Mikeb assumes that criminals think pretty much like the law abiding do. THEY DON’T! If these proposals were implemented they would create a serious burden to the law abiding, while doing nothing to lessen gun crime. Criminals will always find a way around the law, and considering how many ways around I can think of, using my non-criminally-oriented mind and taking only a few minutes to ponder, these would hardly put a dent in crime. A temporary, but very short, reduction perhaps, but not lasting.

    This is the same flaw in thinking that I frequently see in people who champion the coddling of terrorist prisoners and restraint in the use of force on the battlefield (the old “disproportionate response” argument). They argue that by doing this we “show them” how reasonable, peaceful, and willing to work with them that we really are. It never occurs to them that, even though that is the way they themselves would see those actions, it is NOT how terrorists see them. They’re from a totally different culture and/or mindset that sees restraint as a sign of weakness, but you’ll never convince these people of that.

  24. avatarDerek says:

    *sigh*

    Not a single one of your suggestions will do a damn thing to stop determined criminals, criminals with stolen guns, gun thieves, or dirty dealers. The only group of people who will be, even remotely, affected by your suggestions are the gun owners and dealers who already go out of their way to obey laws and will now be grossly over-burdened and inconvenienced and the thousands of new Fed employees that we can’t afford to pay anyway. But you already knew that. Didn’t you?
    How about, and I might be going out on a limb here, we make ‘murder’ illegal instead. How about we stop disarming large swaths of the population rendering them helpless to fight back against criminal aggressors. How about stop making excuses for murderers and armed robbers by blaming the “easy access to firearms” and hold them accountable for the crimes they commit. How about… nevermind. I’m wasting my time with you, aren’t I?

  25. avatarSheesh says:

    No thanks.

  26. avatarJohn E> says:

    Okay Mike, I’ll bite.

    Psychological testing? Please, it won’t catch those who are psychopaths, or all those who have anti-social pathologies. And where do you draw the line? If an adult has ADHD, do you allow them to have a gun? What about depression, which can be managed with medication, and is for many people? What about gays? cause they are in the DSM as a disorder?

    Progressives have so vilified guns in this society, that we lose sight of what they are…tools plain and simple. I don’t let my children handle power tools unsupervised nor should we allow them access to guns unsupervised.

    This government needs less laws not more. You strike me as a person who believes the government will be there to take care of you when someting bad happens, that the governement has all the answers to the human condition.

    The fact of the matter is, we need to be more independent of the government, rely less on others and more on ourselves, otherwise we become slaves to a system. And I think our Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they designed the 2nd Amendment to fall after the 1st. You cannot have the 1st without the ability to protect it, against enemies foreign and domestic.

  27. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    I guess the Constitution is lost on you. I will agree to that when you agree the same restrictions apply to the First Amendment (your blog gets pre-screened to make sure their is no hateful commentary and that you have undergone a pysch exam and moreover, let’s discuss the right to religion) BTW), the Fourth Amendment (we need to make sure you don’t have any fancy locks/deadbolts, etc. on your door in case the police need to come in and while we are at it, since you are such a good citizen, sign here agreeing that no warrant is needed), the Fifth Amendment (you should not be allowed to waive your right to incriminate yourself without a pysch exam and intense counseling), the Sixth Amendment (you really don’t need effective assistance of counsel), the Eighth Amendment (what is unusual punishment, anyway?). Hey, while we are at it, let’s discuss the right to vote. Everything you suggest should be applied to voters. Let’s have an intelligence test, a pysch exam, and my favorite, let’s throw in personal interviews to make sure no deviants are among the populace.

    Mike – I think I speak for all here, FLAME DELETED and gun owners don’t trust your plea for “reasonable” restrictions.

    • avatarDirk Diggler says:

      Better yet, Mike. YOU ARE A RACIST. There. I said it. Restrictive gun laws were created to keep slaves and later newly freed citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. Anyone who supports keeping these restrictions in place must be a racist.

      • avatarSteve says:

        Ok, if Farago isn’t going to call you out I will.

        Dirk, your comment is out of line. Mike is not a racist. He is (at least seems to be, I don’t know him personally) an honest person who is trying to find solutions to the problem of violence in society. You may not like his solutions, I don’t care for them either, but name calling is not needed.

        Mike asked for honest discussion. Let’s keep it to that.

        Your point that Gun Control typically affects the poor, minorities and other disadvantaged groups is valid, It Does. Many of the original gun control laws in the US were minted at the same time as the Jim Crow laws by the White Elites in the Racist South after the Civil War, True.

        You make good points, but you are missing one important point. Honest folks can look at the same situation and come to different conclusions.

        People are different, they have different experiences, different assumptions and different priorities. This accounts for people disagreeing.

        So rather than call someone a “racist” or some other name, spend your energy convincing them of the validity of your argument.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          An honest person? I laugh. Mikeb302000 spent several years on another site revealing that he’d been involved in low-life activity in LA, Las Vegas, and Miami. You have no idea who Mikey is. He claimed on another site, his, to have been a Marine at 17, before his mix-in with the straw purchasers, drugs, and a generally wifty life. You don’t know where he lives, if he could pass a NICS check, nothing. He’s been kicked off even democrat sites for being a pain in the ass. He, Mike Bonomo, is notorious on his own site for deleting any comment he doesn’t like.

        • avatarSteve says:

          You are correct, I do not know Mike personally (as I stated).

          You state
          “…he’d been involved in low-life activity in LA, Las Vegas, and Miami. You have no idea who Mikey is. He claimed on another site, his, to have been a Marine at 17, before his mix-in with the straw purchasers, drugs, and a generally wifty life.”

          Do you have links or other evidence to support those statements? If so, I will reconsider my defense of him. If not…Talk is cheap. So hit me with some info.

          My main point was that I get irritated when I see someone tossing about insults in what could be a reasonable discussion. Dirk said “Anyone who supports keeping these restrictions in place must be a racist.” which is the same as saying that anyone who disagrees with him is a racist. And that is not true or fair.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Steve, I quoted Mikeb himself above and he couldn’t deny it. He went through a period a few years ago during which he spoke almost honestly, if vaguely, about his life to age 35. He knows where I obtained his own statements. Then an ex-acquaintance of his turned up on another site to explain what he had been up to. This site (sensibly) does not permit further description. I’ll go with that.

        • Could I have a bit more info on that ex-acquaintance? I thought I’d rubbed them all out before I fled the country.

        • avatarDon says:

          Well here’s the story I’ve heard, maybe true, maybe BS, but technically I think he is invoking (maybe incorrectly) the hypothesis a lot of weapons restriction laws in general were designed to restrict the kinds of defensive weapons that were culturally chosen by various immigrant groups shortly after they came to the country. Maybe also done to criminalize basic lifestyle of immigrant groups who were considered undesirable in society at the time as a means to harass them and drive them out.

          Examples of this are billy clubs and blackjacks (outlawed in many places during main Irish immigration push) and stilettos and switch knives (outlawed in most places during main Italian immigration periods). In general “European Weapons”. The excuse was that such weapons were “gangster weapons” but the hypothesis goes that these were also the only affordable defensive weapons for immigrants who were largely poor, and the defensive weapons they were comfortable with culturally. Guns were more expensive harder to get, providing a barrier for poorer ethnic groups from getting them, but allowing easy access for established groups. This is one of the reasons I think gun rights have been so very well protected and the right to other lesser arms have been so very compromised. People in the establishment didn’t need to depend on lesser arms, and making them illegal was a way to disarm minorities without disarming themselves.

          A parallel today is to demonize whichever gun is the “everyman’s gun”… i.e. handguns in the glock paradigm, calling them “gangster weapons”, etc. Pretty much any weapon that becomes affordable for the everyman suffers this prejudice.

          Personally I am not for “gun rights”, I am for the right to ALL defensive arms, including blackjacks, knuckle dusters, switch knives, handguns, and rifles. These are all viable self defensive aids for people need to protect themselves.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        I agree with your reasoning (mostly), but your conclusion is wrong. I do not recall ever reading anything Mike has written that indicates racist tendencies.

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        I will say elitist but I will not call him a racist.

    • avatarNR says:

      Of course he’s racist. I don’t mean that he is prejudiced against people of any particular group or appearance. I mean that he favors legislation that disenfranchises ethnic minorities.

      I couldn’t care less about how anyone *feels* about people of other races. I care about what they *do* (or advocate doing) that injures people of any race.

  28. avatarflyboy says:

    Although I agree with the spirit behind the rules as well meaning, I don’t believe it would be at all feasible in the real world. For that reason, I disagree.

  29. avatarMilsurp collector says:

    I’m a proud gun owner, and I live in New Jersey, one of the most anti-gun states in the union. Here, we need to obtain a special license from the NJ Police just to buy firearms, including air powered BB and pellet guns. Concealed carry permits are impossible to obtain, transportation laws are positively draconian, and the possession of a slingshot in this state is a felony. The police departments don’t even follow the codified state law that issuance of the licenses must be decided within 30 days of the applicant handing in his/her paperwork. Usually, this wait for the license takes anywhere from four months to a year depending on how socialist your town is. ALL of these laws only hinder the LAW-ABIDING citizens from owning firearms. And still, we’re home to cities like Newark and Camden, where gangs and career criminals murder innocent civilians with guns illegally obtained, stolen, smuggled in from another country, etc. These murders tied in with home invasions happen in record numbers in my state.

    New Jersey is a textbook case of what happens when the fundamental human rights of the constitution were damned to hell by the state government. But I guess that doesn’t matter to you, Mike, as long as the only people with guns are cushy lived politicians and policemen.

  30. avatartdiinva says:

    Once again Mike covers his anti-self defense views with “reasonableness.” Mike is against the private ownership of firearms for hunting, shooting sports or self defense. “Reasonable restrictions” are merely a means to this end. Mike stands with gangstas, rapists and murders against the law abiding public.

    As to the question — no I don’t think we are representative of the gun owning public. We fit into the enthusiast/activist category. Most of the gun owning public just goes about their business in a responsible matter.

  31. avatarcaffeinated says:

    I’m willing to bet gun owners in general are more responsible per capita than drivers. Let me see if I can find some FBI UCR stats.

  32. avatarBill says:

    Think any program for keeping weapons out of the hands of the bad guys will work? We have a couple of perfect examples: Prohibition and the drug war. They worked well, didn’t they? Not.

    Throughout history, anything for which there is a market will be and always has been available. Wishful thinking is not a substitute for reality. There is no way to stop it, so don’t waste your time trying.

    Stop incarcerating citizens for victimless crimes and free up all that space for violent criminals. Lock them up and throw away the key – no repeat offenders. Period.

    And while you’re at it, outlaw civil suits against the victims of criminals. It’s ridiculous that someone can sue because of injuries sustained during commission of a crime.

  33. avatarColby says:

    Putting the “its a constitutional right” argument aside. I do not personally mind jumping through a similar amount of hoops as to what I already do for driving and owning a car. I don’t believe that guns should be made more difficult to own and operate than motor vehicles. So I suppose that I would be partially on board with Mike’s proposal.

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      Again putting aside the constitutional arguments, motor vehicle accidents kill more than twice as many people as firearms each year according to the CDC. Is there any reason to believe that licensing, registration and training will fix that?

      • Yes, of course there is. And it’s not more than twice, it’s 25% more, more or less.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Source? Link? Hell, I’d settle for a Wikipedia article at this point :/

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm

          35,080 deaths due to motor vehicle accidents in 2010.
          11,015 deaths due to homicide via firearm in 2010.
          600 deaths due to firearm accidents in 2010.

          11,015 + 600 = 11,615 total deaths via firearm in 2010.

          35,080/11,615 = 3.02, which IS more than double.

          Learn to fvcking math, Michael.

        • you conveniently leave out the suicides, I wonder why that is.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Because they are irrelevant. As has been stated (and proven via statistic) time and again, while gun suicide rates may change with limited access, overall suicide rates do not. They just find a different method.

          Shit. I just broke my own rule about responding to you.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Japan has what you may call an epidemic of suicides yet near total elimination of civilian owned firearms. Suicide by pill seems to be a more popular choice anyways.

        • And if Japan were magically flooded with guns overnight, don’t you think the suicides would increase?

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          No I don’t think it would. A lot of Japanese actually leap out of buildings and off bridges. Firearms are just another means.

          The point is that it has virtually no private ownership of firearms and yet it has a far higher suicide rater per capita than the US. It is also better educated.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Why would you put the “it’s a constitutional right” argument aside?

      • avatarColby says:

        Just hypothetically thinking how I could frame Mike’s argument so that it would make more sense to me.

      • Simple, I put the “constitutional rights” argument aside because even constitutional rights can and do have restrictions. You cannot hide behind the 2A unless you’re one of those truly wacky extremists who take “shall not be infringed” to its literal end.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Mikeb, sadly the 2A is a fraction of what the founders had put into place. Unlike automobiles, fast food, and swimming pools; the Second Amendment is in the Bill or Rights.

          So we are not hiding behind anything as much as we are standing up for rights that have been whittled away since inception thanks to people “who know better.” If you like this utopian final solution you have proposed, then go ahead and move to a country that already has this in place. Stop trying to screw up mine. You’ll probably find that countries with “reasonable” restrictions you have listed are shitholes. Again, move there and stop trying to screw up my country. Thanks.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          “Hide behind the 2A…” What a wonderful phrase. It’s that missing variant we’ve so often had to remind prosecutors not to use, like “so, you’re going to hide behind your 5th Amendemnt (4th Amendment) rights, eh?” Mikeb, you’re American in passport only.

  34. avatarLeo Atrox says:

    I agree that the “AI” isn’t representative of all gun owners at large, and I thank you for recognizing that the folks on this board are, generally, safe and reasonably intelligent folks. (At least, I think I am …)

    On to the topic of your proposed restrictions:

    1. licensing of all gun owners after written and psychological testing.

    The reason this is not at all reasonable is that we’re dealing with a right, such as it is … It isn’t reasonable to require licensing for public speech, or privacy, or due process; and arms–of any kind–are a right protected in the same manner.

    2. registration of all guns to a licensed gun owner followed by renewal after 3 months and yearly thereafter – the renewal would require producing the gun and its paperwork

    Registration of guns costs time and money. Now you’re requiring that folks pay to exercise a constitionally-protected right. (Did you renew your federal blogger registration yet?) Yes, I realize that some states do this already; but that doesn’t make it right for the federal government to do the same. And these laws were passed before the Second Amendment was “incorporated” to states and local governments. As it was when those laws were passed, the Second Amendment restricted only the federal government … Or should have restricted only the federal government. The restriction obviously didn’t work well in practice.

    3. closure of the private sale loophole by requiring background checks on all transfers and transference of the registration from one licensed owner to another

    Okay. What? Yes, I said “okay.” Your “licensed owner” wording aside, I’m fine with that. Some folks aren’t, but I think requiring background checks on all sales is fine. I also think that the GCA is bullsh_t and that I should be able to go pick up a select-fire short-barreled rifle and a supressor too. Go ahead and run my background check, and give me my “machine gun” and supressor. If you know I’m legal for it, why can’t I have the firearm I want?

    4. safe storage laws and severe punishment if a kid or a thief too easily gets one of your guns

    Stay out of my house. That right, stay out of my house. Neither you nor any government has any business telling me how to organize and keep my belongings. (I’m being a bit impertinent, I know; but it is for dramatic effect, so please forgive the impudence.)

    You’re talking about a law that targets guns and gun owners, rather than criminals. It’s not that I don’t agree that gun owners have a responsibility to keep track of their firearms; but what’s the difference between what you’re proposing, and saying that a car owner can go to jail if his car is stolen from his garage and the theif runs over a bystander with that car? (Let’s say, for comparison’s sake, that the car was in a locked garage but the key was in the car.) The thief is clearly the responsible party. He is the criminal, and I don’t think it is appropriate to criminalize being a victim. This isn’t to say that allowing a kid to access a firearm and shoot himself or his friend isn’t “criminally stupid.” It’s negligence. But there are already laws to cover that kind of stupidity, and they cover guns the same way they cover knives and swimming pools.

  35. avatarMatt in FL says:

    You missed April Fools’ by two days.

  36. avatarDon says:

    There is an assumption that gun enthusiasts are all solidly politically and/or socially conservative or libertarian. This is not true, as most people are a complex mix of this oversimplified spectrum set forth by what George Carlin would call “our handlers” in order to divide and conquer us for their own personal profit.

    Many of the more frequent posters of the Armed Intelligentsia seem to be conservative leaning politically but maybe a little less so socially. Sometimes articles are written assuming a conservative audience. However, in the past casual posters have come out and admitted to being pro gun democrats, atheists, social liberals, LGBT, etc. It seems that there could be a large silent demographic of this type. Assuming a uniformally conservative (or at least politically interested) audience may be a bit of a detriment in some ways.

    I believe the reality is that gun ownership and enthusiasm is way more mainstream than everyone assumes, but all but a particular personality type is heavily closeted. I certainly don’t talk about believing gays should have equal marriage rights under law or that DADT was uncivilized at the local shooting club. I’m afraid to, and really that’s not what I’m there to do. Likely my fear is not completely justified and likely I would discover that others quietly share some of these views. Who knows, not going there.

    There is a fact that goes completely ignored however. Regardless of people’s views, most people are pretty moderate and even including people who aren’t, most people are pretty responsible.

    What floats to the surface of public scrutiny is always the anomalous case. It’s only news if it’s not normal. We all fall into the trap of observability bias and assume that what is visible is the majority. (different from observer bias). This is usually never the case in our culture.

    To address the mikeb “ideas” for new gun controls… really there isn’t a problem that these ideas could address. The only way to fight crime is to make less criminals which requires criminal culture to change. No one knows how to do that and it is likely unimaginably hard to do. I get it though, when bad things happen people want to see action taken, and people responsible for taking action want to take the easiest action that will get people demanding it off their backs. What could be easier than punishing already law abiding citizens? Even better, if we criminalize them they’ll be really easy criminals to catch (since their not really criminals) and we can show people we’re catching criminals! Gun control advocates conduct themselves like they are in a political campaign, focusing on what is achievable and what they can easily claim credit for, NOT what actually solves the underlying problem.

  37. How few of you are adressing the question in the post. I suppose if you did, you’d have to admit that my logic follows from there. Gun owners at large are not the safe and responsible bunch you keep trying to say they are.

    Hence, the need for proper gun control laws.

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      “Gun owners at large are not the safe and responsible bunch you keep trying to say they are.”
      —–
      And that right there is why so few of us addressed your question. Your sweeping generalization, backed up with zero documentation, invalidates your “logic”. If the premise is false, the argument can not be true.

    • avatarLeo Atrox says:

      Ha! You’re right (about not properly addressing the question). Let me rectify that:

      Yes, the “AI” are generally smart–although there are clearly a few stumps in the forest. Perhaps smarter than the “average” Joe American, even. That said, you paint a grim picture of Joe. He’s apparently stupid and needs a government (manned my other stupid Joe’s, who were elected by stupid Joe’s) to tell him how to be safe, to protect them from themselves. I disagree. I think Joe is smarter than you give him credit for. He’s become accustomed to people calling him stupid, and maybe he’s started to believe it himself. But, if properly educated and motivated, he’s a smart fellow. I think that a lot of folks are just scared to give him a chance. We’re like scared parents afraid to let the kids go off to college. Well, it’s time to let Joe spread his wings. He has to learn to be a grown up now.

      Some folks will hurt themsleves or others. Yes, it will happen. But Stumpy doesn’t put his hand in the bandsaw anymore. You can call them “growing pains” if you like. There will be bumps and bruises, but society–Joe American–will learn on his own how to be safe. He doesn’t need Mama Government telling him how to do it.

      Smart fellows–or at least, folks who consider themselves “smarter than the average bear”–tend to allow arrogance to cloud their judgement of others. I’m guilty of it. Everyone else seems stupid to me. But that doesn’t make it true.

    • avatarMilsurp collector says:

      “Gun owners at large are not the safe and responsible bunch you keep trying to say they are.” You didn’t even back up that statement with any form of evidence whatsoever. Do you think we’re supposed to believe you just because you share a common bond with other anti-gun people? Nice try, but your argument reminds me of that one annoying mother of a 1st grade child trying to tell other moms what toys their kids should and shouldn’t be playing with because “A CNN report said so and so toys are dangerous”. Stop telling people what they should and shouldn’t do, own etc and let them take responsibility for their own actions.

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        He doesn’t back anything up with stats or research. I’ve been asking and challenging him on this issue since I started reading this blog and I’ve gotten a single link back to his blog citing a source from an anti-gun group. Woo wee.

      • Milsurp, read the news, man. Every day there are several news stories of lawful gun owners fucking up. Imagine the ones that don’t make the main stream news.

        • avatarLongPurple says:

          “Selection and slanting” by the Liberal controlled Media is less than convincing.
          ‘Nuff said.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “Every day there are several news stories of lawful gun owners successfully defending themselves or others with the most effective self defense tool commonly available. Imagine the ones that don’t make the main stream news.”
          —–
          Fixed.

    • avatarDon says:

      Gun owners at large are in fact responsible, if the metric is how many of them actually cause any problems using guns, which is virtually zero (not exactly zero, but virtually zero, in spite of the media saturation which occurs around anomalous cases). This is easy to confirm by scrutinizing any law enforcement statistics.

      Car owners on the other hand are a menace to society. As are alcohol owners, hedge fund owners, and non-insured emergency room users, etc.

      ABRACADABRA! (for Leo)

    • avatarSteve says:

      Mike,

      There are about 6 million active concealed carry permits in the US. And the odds are that yesterday, all 6 million of those folks did not commit a crime.

      There are 80+million gun owners who collectively own around 200-300 Million guns in the US.
      Today, the overwhelming majority, say 79,999,900 of those people will not commit a crime of any kind.

      The restrictions, fees (taxes), and other ideas you put forward will affect us (legal gun owners), but will not affect the small minority of people that are going to do something illegal. In effect you are saying we are “Guilty by Association” and punishing us accordingly. That is Just Plain Wrong.

      Speaking of Registration. If the gov’t were to require registration, I would register. I would complain and vote against it if I could, but I would comply.

      But do you really think that anyone with a criminal bent, would ever be induced to voluntarily walk down the the police station and present their weapons for inspection and registration? That strains credibility to the breaking. Would that not be classified as “self incrimination”….which is something you cannot be compelled to do?…because of the Constitution. From the Fifth Amendment “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”

      Your proposed registry would be full of all the names of people that are the least likely to pose a problem which would be absolutely useless. Canada has tried that, and have found it to be… expensive and useless. Read up on their experience with their Long Gun registry. They have not solved even one crime with their LG registry (never mind prevented). Its a waste of resources.

      But dont take my word for it:(from Wikipedia)
      ‘Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino is opposed to the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:

      We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.”[11]

      As for Illegal guns. Look at Mexico. They have all of the restrictions and regulations you propose. None of them have helped stop the Drug Cartels from doing whatever they want. And before you start with “Mexico’s violence problems are the US’s fault because of our gun laws” line, remember, if it wasnt us, it would be someone else. The Cartels have the money, and therefore they will find a way.

      This has gone way long….Sorry

      • Steve, your first two paragraphs are a wild as if I had said almost all of the 6 million commit crimes every day.

        Your assertion that NONE of them did is ridiculous when you think about it, am I right?

        The vast majority are law-abiding and responsible, fine. But what exactly does that mean. Whatever number you put on it, since we’re talking about millions the rest are too many.

        • avatarBill says:

          Mike you keep on bleating that we will somehow agree with you if you keep posting your ridiculous “ideas”. Not a single one of them is reasonable or logical. In fact, all of them require more government and more money. I have to jump through enough hoops already to buy a firearm and I refuse to jump through anymore so you can sit back with a haughty, smug smile on your face thousands of miles away. I don’t how you came to be a collectivist or how you can believe that a basic human right is subject to your regulation and I don’t care. FLAME DELETED

    • avatarBrian Z says:

      I will address this directly. Most gun owners are responsible. Any questions?

    • avatarMakattak says:

      I didn’t need to address that point.

      Whether or not gun owners are more or less responsible is immaterial to your supposed aim.

      If you want less crime, more gun restrictions is not the answer. (Again, look at the results across the globe.)

      The premise upon which you base your call for more restrictions on gun owners is thus unimportant to the argument.

      And, if you aren’t arguing that more gun restrictions will result in less crime, why do you want the restrictions in the first place?

  38. avatarRopingdown says:

    The proposal put forth in this post is straightforward enough. It is prefaced by the stated assumption that while TTAG readers are “for the most part” competent in their conduct of firearms related activities (how flattering), the average American gun owner is a sloppy drug and booze-abusing lout whose approach to life is one of apathetic negligence. We all know that more regulation means a safer world, don’t we? Just ask Mr. Madoff’s former clients! “All your billions are be mine!”

    Then comes the proposed list of restrictions. Some would argue that it is an odd approach to a Constitutional Right that one should have to take written tests and psychological exams before exercising the right. I must admit, though, that as to guns Nigeria follows this protocol, so Mike has deftly selected a system already imposed by a model of good government. Well, that’s a time saver! One does not carelessly dismiss a practice Nigeria has thoughtfully implemented! An annual licensing is proposed: I assume this “annual” bit would be like my annual car registration, just $34 and a mail-in. Call this deficit reduction (Big Brother’s) if you can’t see a safety benefit. As to my detailed objections to gun registration, I’d assert my 5th amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, but (and keep this to yourselves, please…) , I haven’t passed the written and psychological exam for that right yet, so who knows if I’m competent to assert it without causing myself harm?

    Finally, what could be more appropriate that “severe punishment” of me if a thief steals my inadequately locked “bump in the night gun” from my bedside by means of incredible ninja stealth? In short, the author recommends that my pistol be locked up tight at night, so that even the loud and clumsy break-in artist gets a few good whacks in before I’ve got the damned thing pointed his way? I detect in this proposal a sort of Rainbow Coalition idealistic affirmative action for burglars. Sure, the good ones will succeed regardless, but the loud clumsy ones? Let’s level the playing field for them, shall we? I call that “equality of results” where formerly burglars only experienced equality of opportunity.

    The epilogue of Mikey’s post is where we find the most philosophically rich flourish: Look, don’t tell me you’re law-abiding if you refuse even the most modest of Orwellian tracking. I think we know your scofflaw sort! Well, Mikey thinks he does.

    Make no mistake: Mikeb302000 knows of that which he speaks. He’s claimed elsewhere to have played a role in both straw purchases of guns and careless storage of them in trunks of cars which subsequently get stolen. God knows he’s claimed to be around drugs and guns in the same day. So listen if you will to the voice of experience, Mikey’s, who for all I know is writing to us from Dartmoor Prison. Let the grandeur of his approach sweep away any desire to know who the hell the fellow actually is today, what he does, his qualifications if you will. Piffle. Qualifications are for gun owners. Regulatory proposals can come from Ulan Bator for all we care, right? I personally doubt MikeB, a US person, has the legal ability to pass a NICS check, but doubt I’ll get an anwer on that this week. In the meantime, he’s told you who he is philosophically. Now your task is to remember his birthday, and send him a Brown Shirt.

  39. avatarDarren from MA says:

    In MA, we have all of these implemented. And yet, every other day in the Globe and Herald, you can read about a gang-banger shooting, or two groups of people who meet up, look askew at each other, and start shooting. None of them have permits, certainly not to carry. There are parts of Boston, Brockton, Lawrence, and Springfield you cannot go to safely.
    We have had many cases of “prohibited” people acquiring firearms, and using them for murder (ex the guy who walked out of Shirley prison and murdered a barber, or the killing of LEO Jack mcGuire, or the killing of the Nepalese store clerk Christmas 2010). None was prevented any of these these four suggestions.
    What we do have is people waiting months, (up to 6+) to receive or renew their license. We have Police departments making up any requirement they want to deny or discourage applications. We have people who have been criminalized because the PD took so long to renew, that their license expired while they were waiting, despite a 90 day post expiration grace period. We have a sudden shortage of registration forms, so no one can register or transfer.
    Anyone who says these ideas will be used solely to discourage firearms ownership is 100% correct, I know from first hand experience.

    • avatarcaffeinated says:

      There are also countries like this as well, but mikeb tends to ignore how this actually affects people. He also ignores the most basic fact that CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS.

      • C’mon, man, that’s an old, tired argument. Gun control advocates do not expect criminals to obey the laws, that’s why the laws are aimed at law-abiding citizens. It’s you law-abiding types who need help holding onto your guns. That’s where the criminals are getting them through straw purchases, theft and private sales.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          You care to list your sources on how many firearms are from “straw purchases” and “private sales”? I hate to break it to you, but in law enforcement there is this little thing called an ATF firearms trace request form. Assuming the serial number is at all legible or retrievable, the ATF can usually let you know its roots.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          “It’s you law-abiding types who need help holding onto your guns. “

          mike, I realize this is impolitic, and I might even get a “FLAME DELETED” for it, but my immediate reaction to this statement is this:

          “I don’t need any help, from you or anyone else, holding onto my guns, and FLAME DELETED for thinking otherwise.”

          I have other, more detailed thoughts, but nothing that really adds any needed depth to that statement. It is the distilled core of any other argument I would make.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          “It’s you law-abiding types who need help holding onto your guns.”

          I had an immediate and visceral reaction to this statement. Read it carefully. Sound it out with your lips if you have to.

          “I don’t need any help, from you or anyone else, holding onto my guns, and you can GFY for thinking otherwise.”

          How arrogant you are to think that you have the right or ability to decide for anyone else, or to think you somehow “know better” than us. Who the hell are you?

          I have other, more detailed thoughts on the matter, but nothing that adds anything substantive to the bolded statement above. It is the hot, distilled core of anything else I might think of to say.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          “Need help holding onto your guns.” Mikeb, you are silly beyond words. Our right to keep and bear arms is secure, enshrined not only in the US Bill of Rights but in many state constitutions as well. You, for various reasons, lack those rights. That wasn’t our doing. Try some other sights, perhaps Gardening.com or Cook’s Illustrated. These are probably more up your alley. And while you’re at it, why don’t you simply tell your readers up front, “I have, from time to time in my life, led a semi-criminal lifestyle.”

        • avatarMilsurp collector says:

          I used to think you had legitimate arguments against our hobby, but now I see you are troll incarnate. “It’s you law-abiding types who need help holding onto your guns.” I don’t need “help” or “assistance” from arrogant people like you or the government in enjoying my hobby of safely shooting holes in pieces of paper. You’re the worst kind of anti-gun activist, the one who thinks they’re better than everyone else to go along with the overly preventative mindset

        • avatarMike S says:

          Mike, someone who straw purchases a firearm is committing a crime, hence, they are, by defenition, not a “law abiding gun owner”.
          Cute little trick though

        • You’re forgetting about due process and innocent-until-proven-guilty. Straw purchasers are by definition people with clean records. Until they get caught they are law-abiding citizens acting badly.

          My idea would put them out of business.

        • avatarMike S says:

          You apparently speak a different English language than the rest of us. Please look up the word “abide”.
          I’m not “forgetting” due process, or any such thing. I’m calling you out for using the term “law abiding” for someone breaking an already existing gun law.
          Either a) you are playing a game with language and implying that “law abiding gun owners” and “straw purchasers” can be one in the same, or b) I’m giving you vastly too much credit, and you can’t see the logical problem you have there. Based on your response, I fear the latter is sadly the case.

        • avatarTooCloseToSanford says:

          Yeah, tell that to George Zimmerman.

        • avatarChas says:

          Yeah, Mikey, the truth is always old and tired to you libbies, ain’t it?

        • avatarDerek says:

          “Gun control advocates do not expect criminals to obey the laws, that’s why the laws are aimed at law-abiding citizens.”

          There’s no way you don’t see the problem with what you just said.

          I take it you’ll never again claim to want to reduce crime via gun control? As you just admitted that laws won’t do a damn thing to control criminals.

          Instead your sole desire is to inflict your will on those around you, to impose your fantastic, emotional, fairy-tale utopia.

        • Derek, you guys really have let go of that criminals don’t obey laws idea. It doesn’t work for the simple reason that criminals get their guns from law-abiding gun owners. It’s the law abiding gun owners who need to be encouraged to stop allowing this.

          You keep arguing as if we we’re saying with our new gun control ideas all criminals will begin to be good. That’s not it at all. Bad guys will always be bad guys. We need to find ways to disallow them guns.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “It doesn’t work for the simple reason that criminals get their guns from law-abiding gun owners.”
          —–
          Um, wouldn’t anyone who provides a weapon to a criminal necessarily NOT be law-abiding?

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Unless it was through a burglary. Don’t worry, Mikeb wants you to be liable for the illegal actions of others.

        • Well, it depends on what you mean by law abiding. Many people commit crimes and have never been caught, I call them members of the gray area. You and your friends keep reminding me you cannot consider someone a criminal until they are caught and convicted. Now, what, you conveniently want to waver on that?

        • “Bad guys will always be bad guys. We need to find ways to disallow them guns.”

          Simple: Get the “progressive” activist judges to start locking up felons caught in possession of firearms, rather than giving them non custodial, or minimal sentences.
          Start at five years without parole & ten if in possession whilst committing another crime.
          Make catching armed criminals an absolute priority.
          See – the only people disadvantaged by doing this are the criminals themselves.

  40. avatarapplebutter says:

    Last week, in SCOTUS, a very good question was asked. And that is:
    Is there a line that can be drawn that clearly limits the power of the Congress to force citizens to actively take part in commerce?

    Plainly, if the mandate is constitutional, there is not. Nor is there a line, once Constitutionally guaranteed rights are surrendered, that will limit government from requiring the surrender of other rights.

  41. avatarBrian Z says:

    Okay Mike, before I go into why I disagree with your restrictions I will admit,
    1: Straw purchases would decrease,
    Other than that,
    Theft of Firearms – Might go down, but what about hot burglaries, which, most assuredly would go up (look at the hot burglary rates in the UK and Canada). If a criminal knows a homes firearms are locked up, they will be more likely to break in and force the home owner to open the safe (would letting a criminal into your safe so they stop torturing you be “too Easy?).
    As far as your assertion that a decrease in the theft of firearms would lessen the chances of a criminal having a firearm, I disagree. The number of firearms currently on the black market, homemade firearms, and the probability that an “iron river” of guns would start flowing up from mexico (they get drugs across the border so don’t deny that they could get guns across as well) might very well cancel out any decrease in the availability of firearms. Although, the criminals would have neater and more automatic firearms since the mexican drug cartels get those from the military and other countries.
    Crazies – Crazy can hide very well and while a few may be caught, many would be missed. How many false crazies would pop. Since more than one person would be giving the exams and psychological exams are largely subjective it is just to inaccurate to work without denying normal, well adjusted people their rights. Whatever happened to 100 guilty people going free?

    Now, outside of things you think we must admit, your restrictions still violate the Bill of Rights making them a no-go in the United States. Also, I assume the police/gov’t would be able to check and see if you have the means for safe storage. That would violate another amendment of the Bill of Rights.

    Your statement that they wouldn’t “disarm anyone who is safe and responsible” is not correct at all. How much would the psych exam cost? What about Registration? How could a poor but yet safe and responsible person pay those fees? What about gun safes? What is adequate protection and how much does what you think is adequate protection cost?

  42. avatarJohn says:

    Firearms Safety Education would do alot more for society than placing more restrictions on firearms and their owners and aside from requiring an ID, a completed Form 4473 and a Bill of Sale for every transaction I don’t see where any of the recommendations in this article would do any good.
    I for one do not agree with any licensing requirements simply because of the potential of being abused and privacy concerns.
    Psychological testing is notoriously unreliable and easily undermined by all but the most seriously mentally ill.
    I am opposed to the registration of firearms with the exception of those already required to be registered under current law for the same reasons as I oppose licensing.
    As I stated in my opening a requirement that an ID, a completed Form 4473 and a Bill of Sale be filled out for every firearm transaction and kept is about all I could agree on. Criminals will either falsify or avoid any transction that involves these requirements. Privacy concerns and potential abuse again come into play here.
    I am not opposed to reasonable safe storage requirements but don’t punish me if one of my guns get stolen just because I live alone and someone managed to acquire it when I wasn’t there.
    Placing more restrictions does nothing but restrict…education works alot better at accomplishing public safety.

  43. avatarKWAL says:

    Not really interested what Mike says, but I love that photo. I need to get behind the camera more.

  44. avatarKelly in GA says:

    So what’s the limit to how old a kid should be before he or she is allowed to defend themselves with a gun at home? If a 13 year old girl is allowed to stay at home alone, legally, then she should be allowed access to her father’s .45. Lest we all forget a DGU of the day where the girl, a teenager as I recall, fired upon an intruder coming through the dog door. If too easy access to guns restrictions had prevented her retrieval of the firearm, then she could have been raped/ murdered/ molested/ assaulted. Need I go on?

    Do tragedies happen, yes. But a parent teaching respect and responsible use of firearms saves lives. It’s their job to parent anyway. They do have to teach us to drive, still.

  45. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    The question of if the AI are representative of gun owners at large is irrelevant. Your proposals fly in the face of all humans’ inherent property rights. Regardless of any statistics concerning crime, accidents, straw purchases, or stolen guns, etc, no one has any authority to determine how someone else legitimately obtains or uses their property. Your proposal is authoritarian on it’s face and thus must be completely rejected.

  46. avatarSilver says:

    1. Incredibly rife with opportunities for back-handed government restrictions leading to total disarmament. When the government defines what’s “normal,” it has complete authority. No.
    2. Wouldn’t stop a thing. Law-abiding gun-owners would follow it, criminals would claim the gun “stolen” or some such. This does nothing to stop illegal gun ownership.
    3. Criminals would simply -gasp- not follow this rule. Drive up to someone in an alley, sell it, drive off. Not a hard law to break.
    4. Punishing the victim. Classy. Why don’t we arrest rape victims for having their genitals too easy to get to? Punish criminals for their crimes, not victims.

    In short, unsurprisingly, none of those laws do a single thing to prevent gun violence and merely infringe upon the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

    And do I believe TTAG represents gun-owners as a whole? I don’t know. Unlike you, I don’t presume to know something so broad without a shred of proof. I do know that every range I’ve been to, and every gun shop I’ve been to, I’ve felt safe and the people around me treated guns with nothing but safe respect.

    Oh, and great picture.

  47. avatarNR says:

    “obedience to these 4 requirements would not disarm anyone who is safe and responsible”

    “the renewal would require producing the gun and its paperwork”

    So… what happens to you if you lose the paperwork? Safe and responsible people lose paperwork all the time. Will you disarm them? If you don’t, the system won’t work.

    Even worse, point four proposes to punish people for being the victim of a crime. Don’t you see a problem with that? In your book, right and wrong are less important than making sure people can’t get hurt. That’s the logic of “I, Robot”– if those are your priorities, you might as well put everyone in a room with padded walls to keep them safe.

    • “what happens to you if you lose the paperwork?”

      I know how much you guys hate the car comparisons, but indulge me for a moment. If you lose the registration document or insurance proof and the cop stops you, what happens? Are you banned from driving?

      The registration document for gun ownership and its periodic renewal is the perfect way to beat straw purchasing.

      And, just for argument’s sake, let’s say it applies to only newly bought guns starting now. Starting now all the professional and part-time and occasional straw buyers are out of business. The impact on gun flow into the criminal world would be immediate and significant.

      Isn’t that what we all want? You’d be inconvenienced, yes, but that’s all. The benefits far outweigh that.

      • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

        Is there a fee attached to this registration process? If so, your scheme wouldn’t pass SCOTUS. No fees/taxes on protected rights. Sorry.

      • avatarNR says:

        1.
        There a tremendous difference you’re overlooking. I’m required to carry insurance because if I don’t have it, I might *accidentally* cause thousands (upon thousands) of dollars worth of damage. It could happen at any moment, for reasons that may be beyond my control.

        You’re suggesting that I be required to keep paperwork on my gun because there’s a possibility I might *deliberately* sell my gun to someone who wishes to do harm with it. The logic there is completely different.

        Why not require everyone in the country to purchase insurance to cover any damages they might cause in the event that they ever commit a crime? That would be much more similar to what you’re proposing. Car insurance is completely different.

        2.
        The only reason you would propose such a scheme is if you think, as you say, the vast majority of gun owners –average gun owners, if you will– are irresponsible and dangerous.

        It’s a popular thing these days to talk about how stupid the average person is. Of course, 100% of the people who talk about such things think that they are a least significantly above average. Horse hockey.

        Mike, believe it or not, you and I are average. Would these regulations be necessary to prevent you from murdering people? Of course not. You don’t know me, but take my word for it: me neither. I’ve never shot anyone and I don’t intend to start now.

        So really, what we have here is some proposed legislation based on the supposition that you are special. Ordinary people, however, need more oversight. You assume that they are far less clever than you, and that they must be controlled. And your willing to play on the vanity of the AI–tell us that we’re above average, and maybe we’ll agree that the hoi polloi are dangerous, and go along.

        Well, we are the hoi polloi. And we’re just as smart as you. Which means, I guess, that you’re just as average as the rest of us.

      • avatarV says:

        No it wouldn’t. You already have to log the serial number and send it to the ATF, a straw purchaser would simply not re-confirm ownership 3 months later and yet the bad guys would still have the firearm. It does nothing to stop it.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Mikeb302000: This post, written by you, was scraped from your web site. Why won’t you expand on your former illegal possession of guns, especially in LA and Miami? What harm could it do?

        In Michael Bonomo’s own words (Mikeb302000):

        “To sum up, I did Parris Island Marine Corp training when I was 17, in the summer of 1970. I didn’t have to go to Viet Nam, thank goodness. After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years. I was never passionate about them back then and over the last couple of decades have become strongly anti-gun, especially since I started writing this blog.

        The fact is, as far as I can recall, the quote “I owned guns both legally and illegally” was the only time I ever mentioned it.
        [...]
        About my having owned legal and illegal guns, I don’t plan to expand on it. Sorry to disappoint.”

        • Thanks Rope for finally providing the actual quote from which you have built an incredible fantasy about me. Keep on, you’ve got a long way to go to catch up to some of my other antagonists who have dedicated huge amounts of time and effort to attack me personally.

          Why? Well, I suppose you and they cannot stand it when someone disagrees with you or questions what you’re all about.

          I’ll mention it again that I haven’t written two words attacking you or questioning where you come from and what you’ve done. By the way, I’m 59 now. Do you realize how long ago that stuff is that you keep referring to. And one other thing, doesn’t the fact that I have some, unspecified, experience with guns work in my favor as a critic of gun rights, as opposed to say Carolyn McCarthy and some others whom you love to ridicule for having none?

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “Do you realize how long ago that stuff is that you keep referring to”
          —–
          Goes to the character of the witness, your honor. If Mr. Bonomo was willing to break the law in the past (on several occasions, by his own admission), who is to say he is no longer willing to do so?

          Objection overruled.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Where I come from is obvious, and if you’ve read my posts you’d know.

          I have no fantasy about you. I have a little knowledge about you, some of which you provide yourself, and which I quoted.

          I find it bizarre that you come to post on a web site focused solely on guns and related topics, just to posit that lawful gun owners are not to be trusted.

          I believe that being 59 now, but age 20-to-35 (your calculation) when you owned guns at times illegally (your statement) and had addiction issues (your statements) makes you an unsuitable person to lecture on gun rights and restrictions, or to pontificate on what our Constitution means. It’s not a subject you know or understand.

          You, yourself, apparently agree that long-term unsuitability is a fair concept, because you have stated elsewhere that even those who have been convicted of a non-violent felony should lose their gun rights for life. Do you not understand the moral equivalence?

          You believe you should escape your past but others should not. That’s quite an unfair concept. You shouldn’t expect anyone to agree with it.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Being an elitist means it doesn’t apply to him. It only applies to people he would like to demonize (gun owners).

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          Why? Well, I suppose you and they cannot stand it when someone disagrees with you or questions what you’re all about

          Or maybe it could have something to do with your efforts to restrict a civil right that they hold dear?

  48. avatarBeninMA says:

    I say we can eliminate foodborne illness, if only we open every kitchen in America to Board of Health inspection… who’s with me people?!

  49. avatarRalph says:

    What is it called when a fisherman slowly moves bait through the water by manipulating his boat under power? I forgot the word.

    I think we should negotiate mikey’s right to blog. Here are my proposed rules (please keep an open mind):

    1. licensing of all bloggers after written and psychological testing
    2. registration of all blogs to a licensed blog owner followed by renewal after 3 months and yearly thereafter – the renewal would require reviewing the blog for satisfactory content
    3. closure of the free speech loophole by requiring content checks on all blogs
    4. severe punishment if anyone actually believes mikey’s bull$h!t.

    • Ralph, you know there have been a few occasions when one of your fellows had the balls to say something I wrote made sense. Of course with your 4th point there your trying to suppress such nonsense. That sounds really consistent with all your other beliefs, don’t you think? Silence those who disagree, yeah.

      • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

        Says the guy whose blog is moderated with an iron fist.

      • avatarMadDawg J says:

        “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”

      • avatarRuffRidr says:

        “That sounds really consistent with all your other beliefs, don’t you think? Silence those who disagree, yeah.”

        This is exactly what your lapdogs Laci and Dog Gone did on your blog for months. Was your sitting around and doing nothing about it at the time consistent with all of your other beliefs?

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        FLAME DELETED

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Sorry, RF, if my comments and questions to Mikeb302000 seemed inappropriate. Obviously I don’t agree, else I would not have written them. I find his discussion of gun regulations and his comments about law-abiding gun owners scandalous considering the details of his background, which I barely touched upon in my flame, and rather indirectly at that. But it’s your web site, your decision.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Have to protect the resident troll, lest he get offended and leave and take all his pageviews-by-proxy with him.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          Or something like that.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          I’m actually shocked that my comment could be deleted as a flame. Certainly Mikeb302000 should be permitted to rebut what I said. Then I should be able to submit documentation of his colorful life from court records falsifying his disclaimers. I thought I was being patient. The site is at least partially aware of the truth of the matter. Is it really the case that despite knowledge of his background the truth should be consider a flame, so that Mikeb can serve as a troll? That’s a game much to cute for me to be involved in.

        • avatarmikeyt95608 says:

          C’mon Ropin, you know that criminals seldom wish to be called on their crimes! Mikeb is just aware and sensitive to his shortcomings. The admins here have no wish to get dragged in to court by a professional victim.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          I left up a comment questioning MikeB’s past that was NOT a flame. Fine line. Decision’s mine. Just in time.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          At least now I know the rules of the site. Thank you. That suffices. I was actually most offended by the comment directed at Ralph, you know. I’m surprised anyone thinks that the internet and the real world do not meet seamlessly in their lives. There is absolutely no anonymity on the net, though it is a pleasant illusion among polite people. It would be wise, a sensible rule really, for people to use manners that would not greatly offend if displayed face-to-face. I note, however, that Michael Bonomo’s education is his affair, not mine, and his offense given is his Karma now, not mine.

    • avatarAharon says:

      “licensing of all bloggers after written and psychological testing”

      There are USG officials who are already calling for limiting blogs and sites they determine unacceptable to them.

  50. avatarGiordino says:

    Gun control laws are just one more way the federal, state, local government tries to dictate to us what we have to do. It is not the governments job to micromanage me or anything that I do. The government is constantly taking small steps that increasingly limit my freedom to do as I see fit. If you don’t believe that, look at the forced health insurance, seatbelt laws, and existing gun control laws. My health insurance plan, whether I have one or not, is my business and my choice. Who cares if I wear a seatbelt? Yes, I can see that they protect “most” people but it should be my choice to wear one, not the governments right to fine me if I don’t. As to existing gun control laws; where I work I cannot keep my firearm in my locked car or on me at work so I either have to break the “gun control” laws or remain unarmed. Problem with that is over the past month, there have been about 7 separate shootings (that we know about) with 3 dead in and around the city. Your choice to be unarmed in this type of environment is your own and I’m not trying to pass a law forcing you to do otherwise. Why aren’t you as considerate of my choice? Your gun control laws only force me into a precarious position I shouldn’t have to be in while the criminals ignore the laws as usual. The conundrum here is that gun control advocates are always trying to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do while gun rights advocates just want to be left alone to make our own responsible decisions. You don’t see us trying to pass a law requiring everyone to own and carry a gun do you? How could I find fault with your proposals? Easy, your proposals are flawed because your foundation is flawed. Since you don’t have the right to make decisions for me, none of the rest matters.

  51. avatarbesbavar says:

    My issues with your proposed system are as follows:
    1: Licensing creates a national database of gun owners. If the political climate towards gun ownership or civil liberties were to shift in the future, then that system can and will be abused.
    2: Registration of guns, while it would theoretically cut down on straw sales, would be exceptionally discriminatory towards certain types of gun owners. I, for example, am a collector. Under your proposed plan, I would be required to transport nearly 100 weapons every single year in an unsecured vehicle to have them re-registered at a public location (which would almost certainly become a major target for theft, given that it is a virtual guarantee that loaded weapons would not be allowed in the area).
    3: While the “gun show loophole” is definitely a source for illegally acquired guns, you have to think about how utterly massive the background check system would have to become to handle every single private sale. Also, how would you go about prosecuting individuals who didn’t perform a background check? Would they be required to keep detailed sales records and be subject to inspection, like FFLs? This is also a system that can be abused far too easily.
    4: While I advocate safe storage, not all of my guns are stored in a safe. My defensive shotgun and handgun, for example, are stored near to my bed but not in a safe. Since I have no children, my wife and I are comfortable with this method of storage. How exactly would you define when a firearm is too easily accessible? With requirements for safe storage, people could theoretically be prosecuted if a child or criminal acquired the keys to a safe. Should gun owners practice secure storage? Yes. Should they be prosecuted if they do not? No. This is another system that can be abused far too easily. All it would take would be a few tiny little laws changing the requirements of the storage device to something that’s virtually impossible for most gun owners to acquire.

    All in all, while I applaud the motivation behind your proposed changes, the simple fact is that they are either impossible to enforce or easy to abuse. If we permit our government to have such a heavy hand in regulating privately held firearms, then we are giving them a blank check to tamper with our rights in the future.

    • besbaver, thanks for taking my ideas serious enough to answer without the dismissive attitude of most of the others. I agree implementation of those ideas would be a nightmare, but isn’t the United States the greatest country on earth, or at least we used to be. The obstacles could be overcome, the cost could be met, and the benefits would be tremendous without any real interference in your life.

      • avatarRalph says:

        but isn’t the United States the greatest country on earth, or at least we used to be.

        “We?” You’re an ex-pat, mikey. You might as well be a Martian.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Which leads me to another question. Does MikeB really represent anyone living in the US if he is indeed an expat? It makes you wonder if he is in a non-extraditable country.

  52. avatarJR says:

    ” obedience to these 4 requirements”

    Why don’t you kiss my ass.

  53. avatarMides says:

    Its too late for April Fools, it was a couple of days ago!

  54. avatarSid says:

    The model in your photo is well equipped. And she has some nice firearms also.

  55. avatarMides says:

    Ok lets be constructive:

    Your suggestions would work under a utopia:

    1- Most everyone would fail the Psych. test because there are no standards for that and no one would agree on what the standards is for a gun Phsych. test.

    2- Do you live in NJ? Because the you would know that it take 3 months and two written recommendations from the community anyway to get to buy ONE gun by the time the paper work gets sorted out by the PD every time. ( By law it is supposed to take one month).

    3- It will take an immense paperwork effort to sort out point #3.

    4- I agree with your point #4

  56. avatarAharon says:

    “you’re making the mistake of thinking all gun owners are like you”
    — Absolutely not true.

    Licensing and Registration will eventually lead to extreme firearm controls and absurd limits (think Japan) if not total confiscation. As guns disappear crime will increase and increase. If/when America experiences a social/economic/political collapse or other nationwide natural disaster guns will be the only force or tool that will be able to defend the good and unarmed from the aggressive oppressors. Every Genocide of the last century followed an earlier gun registry and gun confiscation. All governments go bad eventually as has America’s increasingly since the first quarter of the twentieth century (some go back further to America taking the wrong turn mid 1800s). The politicians and super rich had no problem with civilian gun use to conquer the American frontier. Now that the physical frontiers are long since conquered, the elites see the conquering of the people as the next frontier to conquer. I think that with America’s power going to be diminishing around the world frustrated power-tripping politicians will increasing see controlling the American people as a way to placate their dysfunction egos. In the future, we can expect far more Diane Feinsteins, Nancy Pelosi’s, Harry Reid’s, Hillary err Bill Clintons, Barbara Boxers, etc to rule America. Increasingly, such people despise the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and want to shove their values down the throats of all Americans.

    Mike, you are naive.

  57. avatarTarrou says:

    Mike, to answer your top question, if only there were some sort of statistic that could inform us of how “representative” this blog is of the gun community at large. Perhaps some sort of number comparing the relative safety and respect for law of, say, CCW holders and police officers? One might then be able to extrapolate the differential between the average Joe, drunk, high, furious, crazy, racist gun carrier and people whom all good liberals think should be the only people with guns, i.e police.

    If only there were some sort of statistic that could show a comparison between the average, oh, say, violent crime rate of CCW holders and, I don’t know, the public at large?

    Oh wait, all these statistics exist and have been widely commented on for years. Gun owners are more peaceful, safe and law abiding than the public at large, the police, and indeed every single demographic in the nation except under-7 and over 80. This ACCOUNTS for the skinny bit of the bell curve where a lot of the bad shit happens. Here’s the thing. I don’t trust you or the government to be able to tell the difference between the first and the fiftieth percentile, so peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

  58. avatarV says:

    Aside from the huge costs that it would place on people to keep their firearms registered (assuming they have more than one), it would do nothing to stop criminal from acquiring guns. After all, aren’t criminals defined as criminals because they don’t follow laws? Yet, we are requiring them to register their firearms and complete background checks before purchasing… yeah that’ll happen. Also, what is “too easily”?

  59. avatarRickster says:

    The main problem with Mike’s suggestions is his belief that the right to bear arms is granted to us and therefore controlled by the federal government rather than a Constitutional Right. Despite the recent Supreme Court ruling many including Mike seem to have no idea as to the purpose and intent of the Bill Of Rights.

    • avatarmmasse says:

      +1 – Way to usurp the constitution. Not to mention that only the law abiding citizens will adhere to this, leaving the criminals free to do as they wish.

    • avatarBen says:

      Exactly. Look up the Bill of Rights. None of the other 9 are subject to any kind of licensing or registration, why should #2? Start thinking of #2 in the same category as the rest and you’ll be on the right track.

      BTW, most people would be livid if you tried to do this with any of the other 9.

  60. avatarMadDawg J says:

    “Leaving aside for a moment the obvious question of implementation”

    That implementation is the issue though. That is where it goes from being nonrestrictive to highly restrictive overnight or it becomes more completely useless and unenforcible laws. Short of searching ever house in the US none of these would stop anything before it happens, they would only take effect after something bad happened.

    • avatarMilsurp collector says:

      And that’s exactly the way it should be. Crime happens, as it has for millenia. There’s no way to absolutely prevent crime from happening. Only we, the law-abiding citizens, can successfully prevent certain successful crimes from happening by being prepared to defend ourselves or our loved ones in life threatening situations. There’s a difference between preparedness and paranoia, as all anti-gun people fail to recognize. Because to them, if the government doesn’t do it or control it for you, then it’s not working properly. To them, there are no individual rights, and that we must be controlled and coddled from birth ’til death while they stroke their egos feeling like they control the world.

  61. avatarJenny says:

    Is this real life?

    In all seriousness, whether YOU or I or anyone else thinks your logic is sound in terms of safety and prevention (which…it’s not) – you CANNOT and SHOULD NOT restrict a right guaranteed by the Constitution. (And yes, I know that there are restrictions in place to the First Amendment, as well as many others, but it’s wrong, plain and simple).

    Owning a gun and protecting yourself, family, or property is a right, not a privilege, and you don’t get to hinder it just because it makes you uncomfortable.

    • Jenny, where do you live in a cave in northern Montana? Are you one of those tough-talking 3%ers? Or are you just like most gun-rights extremists who talk a good game but in the end accept all kinds of “infringements” on your inviolable rights?

      I’m just talking about improving on those restrictions a little bit.

      • avatarMichael B says:

        Lol.

        When I click on your avatar I get redirected to this link:

        http://en.gravatar.com/mikebonguncontroll

        I honestly think you’re one of the writers here that’s simply playing devil’s advocate to try to sharpen pro-gun people’s debate skills (which can be lacking).

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Michael B.: No, Michael Bonomo has been beating the “total gun control” drum for years now, on his own site and others. He’s a Joyce Foundation fellow traveller and a friendly correspondent with Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March. He sometimes has gone by the nickname ‘Sparky.’ His various proposals over the last few years add up to this: He essentially wants all firearms treated as NFA, and stronger restrictions (tests and psychological exams) to increase the NFA-like registrations. I find it more than odd to see his notions as a Post. For legislative proposals concerning firearms, I go to legal sites, not gun review and training issues sites.

      • avatarChas says:

        Yes, I think we’ve all had just about enough of liberal “improvements” to the Constitution, thank you.

      • avatarMilsurp collector says:

        I love how you obsessively desire to see a fundamental right and freedom of the law-abiding citizens of this country heavily restricted or outright banned, and you don’t even fucking live here. That’s pathetic and a sure sign of being a full-fledged troll who’s out to ruin the good times and discussions of everyone else enjoying said right

      • avatarjkp says:

        Mikeb, you sometimes almost come across as a reasonable person….then you hit us with asinine responses like this one to what is actually a good point by Jenny.

        The problem with proposing restrictions on handgun ownership is that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right clearly delineated in the Constitution. These rights exist independent of whatever policy goals (however desirable they may be) that you have.

        If you decide that your favored policy goals should supersede the constitutional rights, you can either (a) attempt to amend the Constitution to explicitly allow whatever restrictions are desired or (b) subtly attempt to chip away at those rights via legislation, favorable court decisions, and the like.

        Don’t expect, however, those of us who believe that the price of individual liberty may occasionally to have to deal with problems that come from people who are occasionally irresponsible or stupid having that liberty, to support you in those efforts – whether it involves the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, and so on.

        In short: you’re going to run into this objection again the next time you propose restrictions of the sort in your post above. If you’re actually here to try to convince people of the rightness of you’re position, you’re going to have to do better than, “where do you live in a cave in northern Montana?”

        If you’re just here to shout at people, to make yourself feel intellectually superior or something well then, knock yourself out. But just let us know that ahead of time, so I won’t bother wasting my time with your posts.

        Thanks.

      • avatarDubya Bee says:

        Oh, yes…. Put on your “reasonable” persona to make your case, but as soon as it’s challenged, dive back into your vitriolic, name calling self.

        Such practice proves the absence of reason in your proposal and in your intellect, such as it is.

      • avatarJenny says:

        Actually, Mike, I’m sure you’ll be pleased as punch to learn that I’m from a large metropolitan area, went to a liberal arts school, and vote Democrat.

        That does not preclude me from wanting to champion and protect my Second Amendment right as equally as I would my First, Third, or Fourteenth.

        Your first improvement would include licensing gun owners by requiring them to take a written test?? Why on earth would you need a gun owner to pass a written test? Remember when we tried to do that for voters? Remember how that turned out? When the basis for the rest of your “improvements” rests on a tactic long associated with DENYING rights, how do you expect us to take you seriously?

        And take a gander at the last sentence of your comment. “I’m just talking about improving on those restrictions a little bit.” Do you know how scary that sounds? Who are you to decide how to restrict my right? When did the Bill of Rights become so malleable?

        • Did you say you champion the Third Amendment? Was that a joke? That’s the only one even more obsolete and meaningless than the 2nd.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          So when can the troops move in to your house, Mike? Are the beds all ready? Remember to have plenty of food on hand. Those guys fet hungry.

        • avatarJenny says:

          Ah, yes. The time honored tradition of pulling one piece of information out of context and snarking on it, while completely ignoring the actual arguments I was trying to make. You, sir, are a certified troll.

        • I already adressed you main idea about the Constitutional protection. I told you what I think about those who talk about “shall not be infringed.” I think you’re silly people because the thing already is infringed.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          And so because it’s already infringed we should put up with whatever cockamamie ideas you and yours come up with?

          It’s called the camel’s nose. It’s already in. We’re just stomping on it whenever we see it. Maybe we can back it out, but in the meantime, we can at least keep it from worming its way further in.

        • avatarLongPurple says:

          “I think you’re silly people because the thing already is infringed.”

          We would only be “silly people” if we tolerated that infringement of the “thing” i.e. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. I., for one, do not feel so ‘tolerant’.

      • avatarmikeyt95608 says:

        Hello mikeb. Do you remember all of those sobbing moments on this board where you burst into tears over the “personal attacks?” We do. Perhaps you need to come back to the States for a short visit (15-Life) and discuss some of (y)our misdeeds with the SA in Florida (Miami). Or in Nevada. Perhaps California? After the drug/weapons charges are sorted out…
        I am just about positive that the list could continue, but you are more of a waste of my time than Facebook.
        As for Robert Farago…
        Well played sir, well played. This troll can sure rack up some page views.

        • avatarLongPurple says:

          Like the song says:

          “Tell me more, tell me more

          Did you get very far?”

          (In your investigation, that is)

  62. avatarcaffeinated says:

    So despite record firearms sales and NICs checks to factually support the case, violent crime has gone down. This is probably not the only reason, but if nothing else shows that violent crime rates have little to nothing to do with firearms sales and ownership except perhaps the old saying of “an armed society is a polite society.”

    For everyone of your national-socialist suggestions; where are the case studies to prove or even offer a corollary that they work? Seriously. There are plenty of countries and even a few states in the US that have EXACTLY what you ask of. Perhaps you would feel perfectly safe unarmed in the lovely streets of Chicago or Boston at night? You could start with those two. How about some of the great places in NYC? DC? I’ve given you at least four US cities with controls you have specifically asked for.

  63. avatarMorsesus says:

    3. closure of the private sale loophole by requiring background checks on all transfers and transference of the registration from one licensed owner to another

    Hmm. So what you’re saying is, once activity is made illegal, criminals won’t do it. Ooh!! oooh!! I know! Let’s make it illegal when someone kills someone for no good reason. We’ll call it ‘murder’, and it will cary a life sentence or death. Whadya think?

  64. The price of freedom is some people will abuse that freedom. I accept that most gun owners are not as well trained and practiced as myself. I still disagree with every one of your proposals.

    1. licensing of all gun owners after written and psychological testing

    Psychology is far from an exact science. If you add up all the different personality disorders and mental illnesses people are diagnosed with today, there are less neurotypical people than there are people with something “wrong” with them. Where are you going to draw the line with who is qualified and who isn’t?

    2. registration of all guns to a licensed gun owner followed by renewal after 3 months and yearly thereafter – the renewal would require producing the gun and its paperwork

    This failed in Canada recently if you haven’t been paying attention. It was too costly and disorganized with no appreciable effect on crime. we have 10 times the population and 350-400 million guns in this country, how do you expect to register all of them?

    3. closure of the private sale loophole by requiring background checks on all transfers and transference of the registration from one licensed owner to another

    Increasing the cost and time, thus disenfranchising more people and giving gun dealers a monopoly on firearms sales. Why buy used when you have to do this stuff, might as well buy new; after all the fees the price won’t be much different.

    4. safe storage laws and severe punishment if a kid or a thief too easily gets one of your guns

    If your kids are old enough to leave home alone, they’re old enough to know how to use your guns for self defense. Children regularly shoot home invaders when their parents are gone.

    “Too easily”? What does that even mean. Someone commits a criminal act breaking into my home or vehicle and I’m supposed to make it even harder for them to get my guns?

    The only thing I am willing to accept is firearms safety and marksmanship as a requirement for high school graduation. Anything else is an unreasonable infringement.

    More kids drown in pools in my city every year than get shot; they have massive awareness campaigns about it but kids still drown. We license drivers and register vehicles; it doesn’t stop them from getting stolen or killing tens of thousands of people every year in accidents. 600,000-800,000 people die of heart disease every year and no one is proposing mandatory exercise or restricting how much fast food you are legally allowed to eat.

    The amount of deaths that result from negligent or criminal firearms use are not enough to worry about before we worry about dealing with all the other deaths that are the result of living in a free society. Guns just get attention because people aren’t as familiar with them as they are with cars, fast food, or computers.

    Speaking of computers, I think we need to register all computer owners and limit download speeds to stop the flow of pirated media and child pornography. It’s really a rather simple solution and completely reasonable. Also all bloggers should be licensed and held accountable if they spread false information or irresponsible ideas.

    Sorry, I’ll take freedom and all the “costs” associated with it.

  65. avatarBob says:

    NO, MikeB! What you said sounds like common sense, but it isn’t, because it ignores the most basic of facts.

    1. Making more laws does not curtail criminals from their criminal activities.
    There are already enough laws making it illegal for bad or crazy people to own and use guns (too many laws in my opinion). Those laws have had no impact on the criminals or their criminal activities. Criminals will continue breaking the law no matter how illegal you make it.

    2. Any new laws will have no positive impact on public safety, because the criminals will ignore the new laws, just like they are ignoring the current laws.

    3. So any new law will only negatively impact law abiding citizens who just want to have the best forms of self defense. If your purpose is to improve the safety and security of the public, then it makes no sense to create any law that will restrict their access to guns. Any new law will only result in a decrease in the safety of the public.

    This is common sense, and this is why your “common sense” gun control laws make NO SENSE.

  66. avatarFrank says:

    Ha! basically, you want the gun laws of Canada. Except that Canada is getting rid of it’s registration scheme. And private sales are allowed in Canada. “…would not disarm the law abiding…” What do you think registries are useful for? 2 things: taxation and confiscation. No registry has ever prevented a single crime, but it certainly helped confiscate millions of guns from the law abiding. I think the Brady Campaign is missing one of its trolls.

  67. avatarMasterK says:

    Counterpoints to 1&2: We know from the writings of the founding fathers that the 2A is specifically in place to protect PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT. Many people who own guns (and this includes me) do so in order to preserve their liberty if ever our own government becomes tyrannical. Our fear (and isn’t fear the reason we own can carry guns?) is that if ever the government wants an outright ban on guns, it will be far too easy for the feds to find every last gun owner and take every last gun if there’s a registry in place. Of course we don’t want criminals to have guns, and perhaps a registry would curtail that, but it would also pose a grave threat to our right to keep and bear arms. My civil liberties should NEVER be in danger just because SOMEBODY ELSE has abused theirs.

    The criminals will get their guns, legally or illegally no matter what laws we pass. Gun owners have made this argument for years, and it’s been true for years.

    My right to bear arms is the last failsafe between me and tyranny. It should be seen as such by all Americans. A registry would GUARANTEE that citizens would have no ability to resist tyranny.

    You can call me paranoid, but I’ll call you weak.

  68. avatarHawke says:

    I have a few points:
    1… Your option 1 was tried to an extent previously in this country, when there was a requirement to pass a written test to be able to vote. Of course this was found UN-constitutional by the supreme court. Also who would be the authority that decides who is mentally fit to own a gun? Would it be a board of inquiry or would it just be the local head doctor? Would this be a one shot thing, you get denied and you are done? What if your head doctor was a diehard gun control nut? No one person should have that much control over my constitutional rights.
    2… On your option 2…. Have you been to the DMV lately….. Lets create more bureaucrats… Enough said..
    3… I agree with the Background checks but as for the other part of Option 3 refer to My number 2…..
    4… I agree there should be a punishment for a gun owner that allows a child to access a gun unsupervised. That said there should also be stiffer punishment for anyone caught in the process of trying to steal my gun. Locks are only for honest people. When I was stationed in South Korea, we had a problem with slicky boy. Anyone that has been there knows who slicky boy is. Slicky boy would come into our platoon area and steal whatever they could get there hands on. Weapons were low on there list of good stuff to steal, not because they were not available but because the sentence was death if they were caught stealing a weapon.

    Everyone talks about more regulation is needed, I say we need to enforce the current regulations. You talk about black market guns. Where do the majority of those guns go? I would bet they are not going north. What are we doing to stop that traffic? But that is a whole different conversation.

    Thanks for reading my rant.

  69. avatarTim P. says:

    I’ve thought about this a bit, and I do not have a good answer. I believe in and support The Bill of Rights, but I also feel that living in a free society demands a level of personal responsibility of which, sadly, many people prove themselves unwilling or incapable. This is probably the reason the US has a large segment of its population make a living in some legal capacity. I do not believe the answer is to restrict or undermine any of the rights, however. Those of us who do have the ability to live in a free society should not have these rights taken away because of the failings of those who cannot.

    These issues can become particularly heated with firearms in particular, as there are extreme viewpoints on both sides. I do feel that it also takes a certain level of maturity to own a firearm, and we regularly see the consequences when they are possessed by people lacking in this respect. At some level, I equate firearms with operating farm machinery. Those who grow up around them and often learn to use them at an early age also tend to learn that they are exceptionally dangerous and can very effectively kill or maim them with the wrong missteps. If someone who has never learned this is handed a firearm or allowed to operate a combine, there’s a reasonable chance that tragedy will follow.

    The problem here is if further regulation is the answer, either through restricting ownership and use–which would only make them even more unfamiliar to people should they be in a position to need them–or regulate and try to ensure proper education before use. I do not have a good answer, but I do not believe more regulation is the right one, and there are a great number of sources for people to educate themselves on proper handling.

    As for the specifics of your proposal, I have a number of issues with it. The primary one is, of course, the restriction of ownership for the reasons I’ve stated above. I also disagree with the theory that most gun owners are not capable of handling them safely. There are millions of guns in the US and, in places like the one in which I live, I doubt you will find a home without a firearm of some sort. The small percentage of people that do prove themselves incapable of handling them do make the news and too often tragically alter or end lives, of course, but I do believe that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible people, just as most people also responsibly exercise their rights to free speech. If this were not the case, the US population would likely dwindle very quickly, particularly in towns such as mine.

    Logistically, such regulation would be very difficult, but it could be addressed. The eventual result of the proposal would be that a smaller segment of the population would be willing to go through the steps of registering all firearms, exposing themselves to psychological evaluations and paying the fees–which would be significant–and would likely be particularly difficult for competition shooters and collectors. And admittedly, I am also just paranoid enough to see a database containing a catalog of every legally-owned firearm in the country and where it is likely located as potentially Orwellian. Of course, the illegal gun trade would dramatically increase and likely extend to otherwise law-abiding citizens who may not want a psychologist to ask why they have a dozen shotguns and what kind of feelings they engender. As for the safe storage laws, we already have severe penalties should a gun be accessed and improperly used. The addition of how safe is safe enough to prevent theft is particularly sticky.

    As I stated, I do not have a good answer, but I do not believe yours is one, either. We currently have a number of laws regarding the possession and use of firearms and, for the most part, they work. I think a better solution would be to ensure everyone is properly educated in the proper handling and use of a firearm, but the issue is that attempting to regulate this also restricts it. I believe most states do have a mandatory level of education to grant a hunting license which would be good for everyone to take, but again, I do not feel it should be required for ownership. The problem with a free society, I suppose, is that it is difficult to maintain, but I feel we have to at least grant everyone the right to live in it until they prove they are among those incapable of doing so. It’s not a great solution, but I have yet to see a better alternative.

  70. avatarDubya Bee says:

    Mike,

    I think some clarification of your points is called for. Let’s put them in plain English, shall we?

    1. licensing of all gun owners after written and psychological testing

    Make a list of all gun owners, so that when “we” (you) finally pass confiscatory legislation, we’ll know who to come for (as has happened in California, England, etc). Create a nebulous definition of psychological “fitness” so your “licensing experts” will be able to disqualify citizens as they please.

    2. registration of all guns….

    Begin emplacement of onerous “duties” to impede gun ownership as much as possible. Soon to be followed by excise taxes set at confiscatory rates.

    3. closure of the private sale loophole…

    Deprive citizens of their right to engage in commerce.

    4. safe storage laws…

    Transfer the definition of “safe storage” from the individual to the state. As typically implemented, require guns to be constantly locked and disabled and ammunition stored separately, and locked. Effectively ban armed self-defense and ensure victimization. (but then that’s no surprise, as the left is the party that caters and enslaves victims.

  71. avatarRon says:

    FLAME DELETED

    • avatarRon says:

      Hi Robert,
      Sorry you found my comments flamming.
      I thought I was complimenting.

    • You wanna talk about spreading the BS, you should look at the responses from the less gifted among the Armed Intelligentsia. A cursory glance down the thread will reveal that about half the comments have nothing to do with the post but are simple personal attacks. Maybe it’s less than half if Robert’s removed some of them.

      You should ask yourself who’s spreading the BS, me for writing a serious post or them for responding like they did.

      • avatarRuffRidr says:

        “A cursory glance down the thread will reveal that about half the comments have nothing to do with the post but are simple personal attacks. ”

        Gee, I wonder what you could have ever done to illicit such a response. In life I generally treat people with courtesy and respect, as that is how I would want to be treated back. If someone is going to act like an a-hole around me, then that’s how I am going to treat them back. So maybe you should take some time Mike and reflect back on how you and your cobloggers (who like it or not represent you) have treated people over the last few years. Look at how you continue to treat posters on your site. Maybe after enough reflection you will realize why you are being treated the way you are here.

      • avatarRon says:

        Sorry Mike, I guess you didn’t notice.
        I was deleted.
        Deleted means no one is allowed to read my comment.
        If no one is allowed to read it, it stands to reason no one is allowed to comment on it.
        BUT since you broke the rule, I will say this much.

        I have never understood why you continually return to a site where you are so disliked. especially when you have your own forum.
        Unless you enjoy it.
        In actuallity you are the most popular personality at this site.
        Yesterday I stated that you were about 150 votes from a certain goal. Today you need about 60 and they are still pouring in.
        The reason for both your popularity and your disdain is your inflammitory ( could these be considered flamming?) comments.
        If you go repeatedly to a site where people have a certain belief and attack that belief, how can you not expect retaliation?
        I think you expect it.
        I think you enjoy it.
        I think you count on it.
        But that is just my belief, no flame intended.

        As far as bs goes I never said everyone deals in facts.
        I said I do.
        I often read comments on this site that I cannot believe.
        Some are just disappointing.
        Some ( in my opinion ) are dangerous.
        Sometimes I point them out. If I think it will do some good.
        Most of the time I don’t.

        Notice above where I said “in my opinion “?
        I have opinions, as do you, as does everyone.
        We are entitled to our opinions.
        We are entitled to state them.
        But when we state something as fact, we are expected to be able to show proof of our statement.
        When I state that something is a fact, I am prerared to support my claim.
        I have rarely, if ever, known you to supply any facts to support your position.
        Without support, a so called fact is nothing more than an opinion.
        An opinion that is stated as fact is, care to take a guess?
        How about bs?
        I believe that what you supply to this site is opinion stated as fact.

        Still, as stated above, I cannot deny your popularity.
        Yesterday the second I clicked the follow-up box, my inbox was overflowing.
        I could not delet them as fast as they were coming in, honestly.
        That is what prompted me to make my now deleted comment.
        And it has not stopped.
        You have received 5 new hits since I started typing this.
        Not like yesterday, but excellent for day two.

        So you go on spreading what ever, those who want to can continue to play your game, TTAG can share in your success and I’ll go back to ignoring you.
        Sounds like a win,win,win,win situation to me.

        • Many of the comments don’t count because they’re not real comments. Yours is a good example. It’s about me, not about guns or my post.

        • avatarmikeyt95608 says:

          Kleenex? Go grab one, and bring back some support for your argument in the form of credible sources instead of conjecture and speculation.

        • avatarRon says:

          Mike my comments are in direct response to your post of 4/4/2012 @ 03:37 and every word is appropriate to that post.

  72. avatarDaniel says:

    1: Written testing: I had enough of that when I applied for my carry permit. As with any licensing process, unfortunately, you are bound to the inept powers of state to set forth requirements for licensure. The ability to learn how to safely handle a firearm is only achieved by handling them, with supervision by someone who knows what the hell they’re doing. If we can get some competent people to light proper fires under license applicants to understand the many rules of proper, safe conduct when handling firearms, then I would get behind this. However, as mentioned, this would have to be mandated by law, thus leaving the written language of the law liable to abuse by activist lawmakers. So in short, the idea is wonderful, in theory. But theoretically, proper communism would bring about virtual utopia. In both cases, one can expect politicians to muck it up as best as any human being could.

    2) I am completely opposed to this. Governments have used this to disarm their populace. As long as there are politicians, there will be those who are determined to disarm said populace completely. We are not safe from this in this country, regardless of the clear language in the bill of rights which states our right to keep and bear arms.

    3) Closing the private sale loophole is just legislation that would make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. I like being able to buy and sell firearms from others without hassle. But if we were to outlaw such a thing, it would only discourage the transfer of arms from one person to another, and would do nothing to dissuade a bad guy from obtaining a firearm illegally.

    4) A safely-stored firearm is a happy firearm. Unless you feel the need to keep a shotgun or an AR-15 by your bed at night. In which case, you are an outlaw if such laws exist. Even if language exists in the law to allow for such an exception, you can be certain that legislation will eventually come around- likely attached to another, more popular bill that no politician would vote against when their political livelihood depends on its successful passage- that would remove this “dangerous exception”.

    Give lawmakers an inch, and they take a yard. It’s the same old story. If we could depend on politicians to serve our interests when it comes to the second amendment, I would have no problem with the passage of such laws. But that is a fantasy world. Thus such legislation will most often meet with my opposition.

  73. avatarBob says:

    Hi Mike,
    I live in Washington, an overall gun-friendly state. However, there was this gray area regarding non-citizens (aka permanent resident aliens), and this is what the good state of Washington did.
    They said they will issue a special permit (alien firearm license) in order to be allowed to own or carry a firearm. More like what you wanted for the general public. They also put some ‘common sense’ requirements, like original criminal history from your native country, translated in English by a public notary… Also needed FBI background check for the applicant.

    Now, all requirements seem sane and should protect the public. However, it turns out that FBI will never release a background check to a non military organization (like Washington’s department of licensing) so no alien would ever get the permit.
    It took 4 years of not issuing permits and a NRA initiated lawsuit to get the legal aliens’ rights back.

    The same goes for the suppresors (silencers) . They are legal, but you need an extended background check. How long it takes? 6 months and from what I heard this is increasing every month.

    So, no thank you!

  74. avatarCharles says:

    FLAME DELETED

  75. avatarMatthew says:

    This will be my last reply to any post by Mikeb. He is a troll who doesn’t even live in the country he disparages. He lives to get as many people as possible worked into a lather with his blatant crap posts. If nobody replies to the troll the troll goes away.

    DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!!!

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Yeah, I’ve decided I’m going to do my dead level best to no longer read or respond to comments or posts by this guy.

      Based on Foghorn’s post about increasing traffic from the other day, the current ads aren’t keeping the bills paid, and BS posts like this one are guaranteed pageview generators, so maybe that will help. 200 comments as of this writing is more than most any other three posts combined. Have to do it without my eyeballs from now on.

      • avatarLongPurple says:

        I have found MikeB.’s vacuuous posts to be worth no more than a few sentences in reply. Next, I expect him to come up with the brilliant idea that the 2 A. only guarantees the states the right to have a militia, or that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to flintlock muskets, not to AR-15s.

  76. avatarTom says:

    The girl in the photo is the high point of this blog. MikeB not so much.

  77. avatarTom says:

    1. licensing of all gun owners after written and psychological testing
    Psych tests are unreliable and political. Seen this at work places.

    • avatarTom says:

      Government also uses licensing as a restrictive brake on gun ownership. Chicago comes to mind.

  78. avatarTom says:

    2. registration of all guns to a licensed gun owner followed by renewal after 3 months and yearly thereafter – the renewal would require producing the gun and its paperwork
    Canada and USA has gun registration and is ineffective. Second Amendment is a check on Despotic Government. I would abolish any registration.

  79. avatarTom says:

    3. closure of the private sale loophole by requiring background checks on all transfers and transference of the registration from one licensed owner to another
    If a FTF transaction does not meet the criminal restrictions, then the buyer and seller can be sent to 5 years hard labor in a Fed Pen. This has happened.

  80. avatarMark says:

    “The best part is that obedience to these 4 requirements would not disarm anyone who is safe and responsible…YET.”

    Fixed that for you.

  81. avatarTom says:

    4. safe storage laws and severe punishment if a kid or a thief too easily gets one of your guns

    State laws exist and they are usually vague and open. If all the guns are locked up, you might as well kiss self defense and defense of property goodbye. Guns were stored loaded out at the farm to protect livestock from wild and feral animals. I was a kid out there. I was held responsible.
    I think gun owners should store guns as secure as possible, but they need to be ready to use.
    Truth of the matter, if someone wants to break in and get a gun bad enough, they can get it. Applies to Military and Police as well.

  82. avatarTom says:

    They’re the ones who sell their weapons at gun shows and on the internet without doing the right due diligence.
    If the seller is FFL or across State Lines, this is going down on form 4473.
    Sell to an unqualified buyer, and it is a felony.

    • Yes, and we know nobody commits felonies anymore. /sarc.

      • avatarJarhead1982 says:

        Since one priest committed pedophilia, all priests must be pedophiles.

        Since multiple police officers commit murder, rape, assault, drug dealing etc, etc, etc, all police are felons and should be prosecuted as such.

        Since the 700k doctors kill 44,000 to 98,000 people a year, all doctors should be banned from practising medicine!

        Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc all based on Mikeb’s premise of fear mongering prior restraints, just like the fictional movie Minority Report, uh yeah right!

        Have the Italian authorities come to see you yet for importing that infectious progressive disease, hoof & mouth disease to Italy?

  83. avatarTom says:

    The problem starts when you guys begin to extrapolate from that and apply these characteristics to gun owners at large. This is just not the case . . .

    I have lived in rural and hick town America all my life and this statement is BS. Small minority give the rest a bad name.

    • That’s right, Tom. Small minority of 80 million does give you a bad name.

      • avatarCarlosT says:

        Therefore the rights of all 300 million of us must be restricted, right, Mike?

      • avatarThomasR says:

        Sorry MikeB, your late to the party, the decision is in, since Florida as the first state with shall Issue in the eighties; now, Illinois is the ONLY state without some type of CC.

        The people and the facts, (less than a fraction of a percent lose thier CC license because of some violation of some law) have shown your fears of common citizens mis-using thier right to keep and bear arms is delusional if not irrational.

        I believe it’s time for you to get some psychogical help for your mental hmmm “issues”.

  84. avatargen4n9 says:

    1. Anyone who would ever trusts the government to decide if they are sane or not, is the one who needs a psychological exam.

    2. The fact that the government, doesn’t know who has what guns and where they are, is one of the very few things, that still makes me proud to be an American.

    3. I would never support private sale background checks. Simply because I believe, far to many people are restricted from owning guns and to be quite frank, I’m glad that most of those people, can easily get their hands on a firearm. With that said, of all the firearms I have sold, other than the ones sold to close family members, that I new could pass a background check, I have always sold guns though a dealer and took the $100 hit on my end, just to make sure that I didn’t inadvertently break the law, by selling to a prohibited person. So really, to get me on-board with background checks, the Lautenberg amendment would have to be scrapped and only violent felons would be prohibited from possessing firearms. Even then, I would insist, that the door be kept open to regain those rights.

    4. Even though I go out of my way, to make sure a child never has access to any of my firearms. It is truly, none of the governments business, how anyone stores anything, in their own home. When I was growing up, not only my home, but the homes of all of my friends and family, had easily accessible firearms. And many of us, including me, had our own gun, with ammo, kept in our room buy the age of 15. The fact is, it is the lack of education, that results in child fatalities involving firearms. I can guaranty, you would have never caught me, even at lets say the age of 5, pointing a gun at my head or anyone else’s and pulling the trigger. I new very well what a gun did, when it went bang.

  85. avatarSanchanim says:

    There is an old adage work smarter not harder.
    There are three things I would like to see personally happen. The first one can be done with no legislation and still leaves freedom of choice to the gun owners.
    1. All manufacturers sell their guns with a gun lock in the box. Yes it increases the price a little, but it puts the tools for safely securing your weapon in your hands with no effort. Also it is good for business. Companies would pair with lock makers in business dealings and it would keep them in business as well. It is your choice whether to use it or not but it makes it easy and puts the choice in your hands.
    2. I would like all gun owners be required to take a yearly NRA safety course. This promotes safety and keeps it in your mind first and foremost.
    * Even if you don’t carry there are people out there that scare the living heck out of me and should be no ware near a gun, yet they own a large number of them. We all have visions of those ladies, don’t mean to be sexist, who buy a gun for protection and barely know how to get the safety off! I am using it as a stereotype but it is an example.
    3. All those who have concealed carry licenses be required to take a course sponsored through the USPSA. This helps keep your skill set relevant and promotes the sport. I personally think we should all be able to carry, but without training we are not only a danger to ourselves but others. Take a look at poorly trained police as an example. I lived in Israel where a lot of folks carry. Taking the course and training is just like going to the DMV for a license renewal, it is just a way of life.
    Now what type of incentive do we have to want to submit to these limitations of our rights you may ask?
    Here is an idea…
    We as lawful sane gun owners have nothing to hide. We can register with a gun ownership database which is linked to NSIC. We have a license if you will with photograph and it is a form of identification. If you conceal carry it will have a special stamp on it showing you have a right to carry. It also state either by watermark or color what state you reside in.
    Like a credit card it has a strip on it. You can go into and FFL dealer anywhere in the US and walk out with a gun immediately. This includes gun shows as well.
    If they swipe it and it comes back clean away you go.
    Would this seem like a good thing to you?
    The NRA and USPSA and other organizations can help run this. The BLM can be involved too. You can pay for and get online tags for hunting purposes. All of this makes life easier for us. In fact it makes it easier for us to get guns.
    Now I live in CA where the laws are, well how should I put this, goofy?
    Lets say I am in Utah and want an AR-15, but of course I can’t because it is restricted in CA. They would not be able to sell it as it is bound to my “license” and residency restrictions. FFL dealers wouldn’t need to worry about the ever changing laws. It would tell them right on the screen what is restricted and what isn’t.
    Lets say in the case of a pistol, where CA has some restrictions on clip capacity. All they would need to do is swap the clip with a legal one and out I go, and another sale for the dealer.
    We can self regulate, yes ok we are linking back to the government, you know that giant evil thing trying to kill us, but if we put forth ideas that make life easier for everyone than why not.

    • avatarNR says:

      That’s crazy talk. You think the government is going is going to take responsibility for telling you what is or is not illegal? Oh, no. You misinterpret the jargon and sell to the wrong guy, that’s on you. Why do you think that every government website that archives statutes has a disclaimer on every page, saying “this might not actually be the real law” (or words to that effect). Everybody knows it’s the government’s job to write and enforce laws. Not to, like, tell anybody about them.

      /sarcasm off

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Well from a personal stand point I am just as deadly fending off zombies with a six round magazine as I am with an eleven round magazine so to me it doesn’t matter. I am not quote that fast with speed loaders and a revolver, but better than most.
        I would like to see laws aligned for all 50 states, including concealed carry.
        I doubt that would happen but we as gun owners should be able to find some type of common ground. If we who want guns put forward something that makes sense then we can’t be called the extreme evil. Yes yes I know there are those who just will never see eye to eye. But by taking responsible steps we can ensure a healthy armed law abiding group of citizens who will be trained and ready to assist if needed.

    • avatarPavePusher says:

      May I see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment Licences, please? May I see your registration forms for all your books and votes? May I see your Voter ID with correct stamp? These programs can be run by the BATFE, the DoJ, and the Unions. No problem, amIrite?

      If you want to buy an AR-15 in Utah, so you can keep it in Utah, you should be able to, no matter what you home state is.

      Reasonable, right?

    • avatarDaveL says:

      Actually, I’d like to see non-gun-owners take courses in gun safety and basic marksmanship principles. Perhaps as part of high school Phys Ed.

  86. avatarQajaqon says:

    Keep it simple.

    “, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

    ” shall not be infringed” == Shall not commit a breech of; Shall not commit an infraction of; Shall not violate this right; Shall not transgress this right; Shall not encroach upon this right; Shall not trespass upon this right; Shall not break this right; Shall not weaken this right; Shall not poach this right; Shall not break off bits and peices of this right; Shall not disobey this right…..

    Keep it simple: all the laws and statutes written to date have been and are infringements upon this right.

    Stop taking your rights for granted. Stop giving your rights away. Stop giving away your responsibility to your rights. Stop denying your rights. Stop ingnoring your rights for some other “easy way”(your not, you are just giving them away.

    Own your rights. Teach yourself and your children your rights and their responsibility. Now, before it is to late.

    “…lest we forget….”

    HSB

  87. avatarMatt G. says:

    Putting that hot chick up there almost got me to read the article, but a few sentences in I realized something was up… and I checked… And yep, written by:MikeB30200.

  88. avatarPascal says:

    1. licensing of all gun owners after written and psychological testing

    Been there done that. CT had both of these and then even under a democratic gov. it was removed. Why? The abuse by the police. The written exam started at 20 questions and then town started adding junk and some grew to 100 questions most not even gun related. There was interview process that was done by the police, and I myself at the time with both Top Secret Clearence and also having been background checked by the House IT and Senate IT for clearence, was denide by my local PD because the cop who interviewed me I had a run in with who had to come to court due to a speeding violation which I won in court and this was pay back. You cannot trust the government using a medical professional or profiler is just too damn expensive and really, unless this is yearly, you will never know who will fly off the handle and many shootings are crimes of passion….So, no!

    The ONLY viable option would be an NRA Pistol and Rifle course for safety which should be valid in ANY state. Currently, I live in CT. If I want a MA license, the same course I took in CT in invalid for one and one reason only, MA requires that the course be taught by someone approved by the MA State PD! Why? Why? The same course, the same material and even the same exam — why does it matter who teaches the course as long as they a certified NRA instructor? I would be Ok with having to go through this course every 5yrs but that is about the limit.

    And one more thing, no way no how should off duty cops and politicians be given special rights and privledges not afforded to normal gun owners. In CA, gun laws basically do not count if you are a politician, in MA, a cop can make a good living selling banned guns that a normal gun owner cannot buy but he can sell to them.

    2. registration of all guns to a licensed gun owner followed by renewal after 3 months and yearly thereafter – the renewal would require producing the gun and its paperwork

    And, who would pay for this? How would the logistics work? My state and many others already require registration and there is NO GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE. If I want to give a gun to my brother who lives in the same house as I do, I need to fill out the same paper work as the gun shop and call in the same exact information. The State of CT has done a marvelous job and in that in never takes more than 3 rings to answer the phone, the people who answer are curtious and polite, and your are done in 5min max — 10min if they are busy. I am Ok with that. Make that on a national level and allow me to carry any where in any state and I am good to go. Anything else is BS. We already need to renew the carry permit license every 5yrs and hunting license every 3yrs, the state does not need any more of my money

    3. closure of the private sale loophole by requiring background checks on all transfers and transference of the registration from one licensed owner to another

    Fine by me provide they follow CTs example. We already do background checks at LGS, Gun Shows and private sales — its fast, quick, FREE and easy and the people on the found nice and responsive.

    4. safe storage laws and severe punishment if a kid or a thief too easily gets one of your guns

    What is too easily mean? What good is a gun for self defense if they are all locked up when someone comes to bust down your door to mean you harm? I have a safe already, and I keep my guns there, but I also keep a side arm with me and by my bed. You could not write a law such that would not be so unambiguous as to all safe storage and guns for self defense to be available.

    We need a common set of laws that can be applied at the national level so that anyone who gets a right to carry license can do so in any state in the union. The laws must be such that particular govts or police politics does not infridge on our rights and still has reasonable restrictions — just like you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater — some limit can be allowed. The problem you have is the far left that irrational fears people who own guns (a does not bother to understand) and wants a pure ban (for emotional reasons), and the far right, who irrationally fears the govt. who want zero restrictions without considering others rights and fears and thus the word compromise is a dirty word.

    Because of the two extremes, you will NEVER have a reasonable set of laws and guidelines which can be reasonable because the extremes will never allow it to happen.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Amen Brother!
      I agree with 95% of what you say. One of the biggest points you made was to standardize concealed carry and other laws across all 50 states which I couldn’t agree more.
      I live in CA and it is so stupid that a gun, same model is legal in CA with a six shot magazine but not an eleven shot magazine. To be honest for me I could care less.
      If I was on some sort of defend your house from zombies shooting spree I can swap magazines fast enough so it doesn’t really matter.
      I also hold a TS, and to be honest I think the main thing we as responsible gun owners need and want is to be able to standardize the gun purchase process whether private party, gun show or from a dealer. Make it so we can purchase from any state, and that everything is homogeneous.
      I believe deeply in training, and safety.
      I served in the IDF for 4 years. I out shot my regiment commanders first day. I can attribute that to courses I took from NRA instructors since I was 8 years old. I was receiving marksmanship badges off the bat.
      Even while in the army I was critical of others regardless of rank for jerking off with their guns. Ok I admit I am OCD I don’t even point a dismantled frame at anyone, but it is the mindset.
      I am not saying we have to be extreme, but making sure veteran and new gun owners have proper training and safety instruction I believe to be key.
      From a personal stand point shooting camporee style on the range and yes having a briefing on safety is relaxing.
      I love doing USPSA style shooting as well. If you have a concealed carry license I feel this training is critical, but how do we make it the same for everyone, maintain our rights, teach those who need training, and make it so we as consumers can self regulate while making it easy on everyone?

  89. avatarJJ Swiontek says:

    “1. licensing of all gun owners after written and psychological testing”

    “Question one: Do you want a gun?”, says the government employee.

    “Yes.”, you reply.

    And the government employee says, “Sorry, you fail. No gun for you.”

    Anyone who wants a gun must be unbalanced, therefore, must be prevented from having a gun. So say the Brady bunch.

  90. avatarJJ Swiontek says:

    “2. registration of all guns to a licensed gun owner followed by renewal after 3 months and yearly thereafter – the renewal would require producing the gun and its paperwork”

    Registration, followed by confiscation, followed by democide. (from JPFO.org, they should know.)

    I’ve asked this before, but it needs asking again and often… WHO EXACTLY DOES MIKEB302000 WANT KILLED?

    • “Registration, followed by confiscation, followed by democide. (from JPFO.org, they should know.)”

      This is either paranoia or a lie. Haven’t you guys told me that in Mass. they essentially have this? Has it led to confiscation?

      What happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s has nothing to do with the United States of today.

      • avatarJarhead1982 says:

        Wow, the anti freedom zealots tried a test run in New Orleans, Katrina 2005 and that confiscation didnt happen, yeah it did.

        Since we are talking about GOVERNMENT actions which government still exists, it is indeed relevent no matter what you say or how you try to spin your irrelevent ka ka Mikeb.

      • avatarBrian Z says:

        I live in Mass and I can tell you the laws they have are not what you proposed.

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        Confiscation doesn’t always happen immediately. Stop trolling us.

      • avatarRobert Farago says:

        What happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s has nothing to do with the United States of today.

        And that right there is the scariest thing you’ve ever written.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          +10000

        • As I said on another comment somewhere, the countries you guys always reference in the registration-leads-to-confiscation argument do not resemble the United States of today in the least. The possibility of it happening here is less than remote.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          If our own states have already done it, there is nothing to say the country as a whole will not. FLAME DELETED

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          And you honor your father by saying so…..

      • avatarQajaqon says:

        Infringement is infringement no matter what color you paint it.

        What happened Nazi Germany did not just happen in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. It happened/is happening in other countries. Yes, it is relevent today, as it was then, as it was 236 years ago, as it was 2000 yers ago, as it will be in the future.

        Humans are humans: some want to live free; some want to contol; some want to be controled; some just do bad things no matter what.

        HSB

      • avatarCVAN 68 says:

        Wasn’t there something a few years back about Ruger 10/22s in New York City being declared assault rifles and registered owners were required to turn them in or dispose of them outside the city? I love my country but don’t trust the government.

      • avatarDavidT says:

        Actually, what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s has a lot to do with todays gun laws. Senator Thomas Dodd (CT) had the German gun laws from that time period translated to english to use as a basis for writing the Gun Control Act of 1968. You know, the one that created the 4473, prohibited most interstate sales, started a (continually growing) list of prohibited people, etc. He discovered the laws when he served during the Nuremburg trials of Nazi war criminals and liked what he heard. His son is no better when it comes to our freedoms. You might want to do a little research before you make statements like that.

        • David, maybe you should do a little researsh, and not on pro-gun sites.

          That story about Dodd using the Nazi documents to model his bill sounds like so much pro-gun bullshit, the kind that is picked up and repeated so many times it begins to sound good.

          I don’t believe it, myself.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          Pro-gun site or not, have you read this? What part do you refute?

          http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

        • I just took a gander at it, pro-gun site or not. I’m sure we can count on them for straight facts.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Since you pull all your facts from anti gun sites isn’t this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? As an aside, the sites these two have listed CITE THEIR SOURCES in a legible manner. That is the difference between your sources and ours.

      • avatarJJ Swiontek says:

        Actually, Mike, I was referring to the Armenians, and all the other 172,000,000 killed in the 20th century in the step-by-step, evil, methodical process of gun control. JPFO.org is just a good source of info on the terrible consequence of gun control.

        It’s not paranoia, and it is the truth. The ultimate result of gun control is democide. Or, the other way to look at it is “There are those who plan democide and use gun control to achieve mass-murder. Those that support gun control are willing accomplices.”

        So, who exactly do you want disarmed so that they can be killed?

        • Nonsense. Is there any single example of a country that suffered that fate and resembled the United States of America beforehand.

          No. Not one.

          In fact this line of argument is so bizarre I don’t think you really believe it. I think you use it as, what you consider to be a plausible explanation for your gun-rights position.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          So the UK was not similar. Got it. Yet their handgun ban and following crime spree are perfect examples of what happens when only criminals have guns. How about Australia? Whether you like it or not, we share many common values and in fact so much so there is an intelligence pact between our countries.

        • In the important things the pre-ban UK is completely different than the present-day US.

          1. Deep-rooted gun culture
          2. Number of guns per capita
          3. 2nd Amendment

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          Yes, all those things serve us well, and must be cherished and protected.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          So why do they have a higher overall violent crime rate? It seems that guns are not the problem. The UK indeed had a gun culture despite what you may think. Although it is different than ours, what do you think the lend-lease agreement was?

        • I don’t know anything about the lend-lease agreement. But I do know that the oft-repeated mantra that they have a higher overall crime rate is debatable. I remember one article in the Globe that you guys went berserk over. That’s it.

          By the way, why do you keep making absurd statements without providing links and proof? I hate that shit.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          You se riously can’t google the lend lease agreement? Why don’t you answer mike the limey’s points since he actually lives in the UK?

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          BTW I forgot to post a link since it takes a whole two seconds to find through google. Here straight from the horse’s mouth:

          http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/crime-justice/crime/violent-and-sexual-crime

          But of course you don’t care about facts unless you made them up on the spot. BTW all the articles are from the Telegraph and Dailymail. The Globe is a tabloid. Nice try at an underhanded insult from someone who can’t figure out fact from fiction nor a two second google search.

        • Who could possibly learn anything specific from that site you linked to. Or is it just me, who can’t even do a 2-minute google search?

          Try this one on for size.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          I know a lot of people like to link to wiki and cite wiki articles, but try reading the reports rather than having the paraphrased. A lot of the information is “lost in translation” not to mention anyone can change literally anything on wiki. I can put out the link for the US DOJ crime reports if you’d like too.

        • Until relatively recently, the possession of firearms in the UK was the highest in Europe & our NRA was founded in 1859, some 12 years before that in the US.
          I suggest you consult Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England to determine the origin if the US 2nd Amendment

      • What happened that MADE Germany become what it did happened under conditions not too far from those in the US during the Great Depression.
        I suggest you read some more European history before you make assertions that have little bearing on the facts.

        If you think modern Western society is safe from collapse, then consider the riots here in the UK last year – caused not by a major disaster but by the death of ONE criminal at the hands of the Police.

        • Mike, They didn’t have the gun culture that we do. They didn’t have the number of guns per capita that we do. And most of all they didn’t have the 2nd Amendment that we do.

          There’s no comparison.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Look to lend-lease and look to the rich hunting and sports shooting traditions of Germany. The gun culture is there whether you like it or not. Even today, there are plenty of AR15s and other scary black rifles in civilian ownership in Germany.

          Stop making your own facts up. This is easily accessible information through a simple google search.

        • The Nazi’s control of the people might well have been curtailed if Germany DID have the same 2nd Amendment & level of firearms ownership as the US.
          This contradicts your basic premise.

  91. avatarkoolaidguzzler says:

    This is the position I’ve taken on gun ownership since 20 yrs ago — structure handgun ownership and operation like vehicle ownership and operation. No more, no less. The DMV model is simple. Yes, another bureaucracy, but also another huge revenue source that could be used to support shooting sports, specifically more and more varied ranges and shooting programs, like there were when I was a kid.
    Numerous gun owners reflexively balk at any attempt at regulation, due to the slippery slope argument. In my relatively long life, I haven’t seen the slippery slope gun rights argument substantially bear fruit in reality.

    • avatarBrian Z says:

      I’m pretty sure the last time I checked there wasn’t an amendment in the Bill of Rights that talks about drivers licenses.

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      Vehicle registration and driver licenses have not eliminated the 35,000+ deaths yearly due to motor vehicle accidents. What possible reason could you have to believe that gun registration and licensing would eliminate the 11,700 deaths due to firearms?

      “In my relatively long life, I haven’t seen the slippery slope gun rights argument substantially bear fruit in reality.”
      —–
      If that is the case, then one of two things must be true:
      1. Your “relatively” long life isn’t “relatively” long enough.
      2. You haven’t been paying attention.

    • avatarQajaqon says:

      What part of “.. shall not be infringed” do you not understand .

      Please.

    • avatarQajaqon says:

      UH…..

      Look North. Look South. Look to Europe. Look to the East.

      Look at each of the States.

      Look to the actions that led to the war that your country grew out of.

      These are examples of “the slippery slope” and some are just cliffs.

      Prepare for your landing.

      HSB

    • avatarLongPurple says:

      “. . . another huge revenue source that could be used to support shooting sports . . .”

      Deja vu. Same thing as Social Security, which somehow wound up as “general revenue” for Gov’t to spend as they wish.

    • avatarPavePusher says:

      Translation: You want to tax a Constitutional Right.

      Hell. No.

  92. avatarRick N-Cruz says:

    What do expect to accomplish with these laws?

    We already have all of what you propose in Puerto Rico, except for the psychological testing. Instead, the police interview your neighbors and some family about your psychological stability. Everyone needs to have a license to legally own a gun. Police appear at your home and verify your firearms. Renewal is not yearly, but is periodic and mandatory. If you violate safe storage laws, even if no one is injured, your license is revoked and you can no longer legally possess a firearm. In addition every ammunition sale is registered to a license and must be in a caliber for a registered gun. Pretty much what you propose.

    What has been the result? We had the highest murder rate in our history last year (about 29/100,000). That’s almost twice the murder rate in Mexico (using Wikipedia data).

    None of the gun control laws have reduced the availability of firearms or ammunition to criminals, because they don’t care about abiding by the laws. They have fully automatic weapons (more than 100 full-auto AR-15s were stolen from the police arsenal in 2011). They have practically unlimited quantities of ammunition (contraband firearms and ammunition found smuggled in ocean-going shipping containers of cooking oil, in bicycle frames, in auto tires, etc.)

    It’s a nice idea, but doesn’t work to reduce violence. to do that, you need to control criminals.

  93. avatarR. Stocum says:

    I am a generally law abiding person, and I will NOT go along.

  94. avatarFrankInFL says:

    “everyone seems to agree on the need for training and adherence to the 4 Rules of Gun Safety”

    I think you said that wrong. I would have phrased it as “everyone seems to agree on adherence to the 4 Rules of Gun Safety and the need for training”.

    If you start with the 4 Rules, you have a huge jump on ‘training’. The ability to recite the 4 Rules should be mastered by about age 5.

  95. avatartdiinva says:

    This post has given me a new perspective into the mind of Mike B.
    I had no idea that he was felon. (Whether convicted or not)
    His Italian background explains why he has escaped to Italy. (A possible Michael Corleone situation perhaps.)
    If Mike is sincere then he is just showing the zeal of the reformed sinner or Mike is just sticking up for his fellow felons. I go with (a) but (b) is not out of the question.

  96. When you come right down to it, letting people vote is more dangerous than letting them own a gun. Our current problem is not Obama, but the people who voted for him. He’ll be gone in at most 4 more years. The people who voted for him will be around a lot longer, and will continue to vote for candidates like him.

    I’m not in favor of restricting the right to vote. However, I see no reason why being a gun owner should be more restricted than being a voter. Voting is the citizen’s participation in what the Romans called “the power of the rods and the ax.” It’s an awesome power, and in the long run can do much more harm than can owning a gun. Remember, Hitler won what was apparently a fair election.

  97. avatarVermont Guy says:

    Dude, you missed April 1st by two days! Better luck next time.

  98. Here is the best a gun bigot can do…

    Approximately 360 MILLION guns in America.

    If only TEN PERCENT of the guns were used to do bad things that would mean that there would be at least 36 MILLION nasty things happening with guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    If only ONE PERCENT of the guns were used to do bad things that would mean that there would be at least 3.6 MILLION nasty things happening with guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    If only ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the guns were used to do bad things then that would mean that there would be at least 360,000 nasty things happening with guns each year.

    And that’s about twice as high as the right number.

    So Mike thinks that because .01 of guns are used by people who are causing problems that socieity cannot tell the difference between them and the 99.99 percent that are not using their firearms for problems? And this, Dear Readers, is the mindset of the gun bigots such as Mike.

    He expects the 99.99 percent, the owners of the 350,800,000 guns that did no one no harm, to spend billions of dollars and millions of man-hours to solve a problem that training and registration simply cannot solve. Almost all people have driver’s ed classes, and almost all cars are registered, but somehow that doesn’t prevent a person from using a car in what ever crime he chooses to use it in.

    He wants to deny the natural rights of people because ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT do bad things. Tell us, Mike, if I find that ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of police, doctors, lawyers, or school teachers also do bad things with their tools can you and I agree to do away with those professions also?

    And for a perspective of the actual cost of “registration”, not even counting classes, go here:

    http://www.freelibertywriters.com/bruce-krafft/2012/3/20/dancing-in-the-blood-of-fallen-children.html#entry15503137

    We now know more about what people such as Mike consider “common sense” than they ever thought we would.

    • Jack you’re quite the spin doctor. First of all, if you wanted to present a fair and honest scenario, you’d have to start with 80 million, which is the generally accepted number of gun owners. You almost sounded like you were empowering the inanimate objects to do wrong. It’s the gun OWNER that we’re talking about.

      Then, when you do your percentage thing, long before you get to the “one tenth of one percent,” you’d be makin’ sense.

      • Okay… let’s start with 80 million gun owners… which means that only ONE QUARTER of ONE PERCENT do anything bad with their guns, and you believe that the other 99.75 percent should be forced to spend billions of dollars and untold number of hours trying to solve a problem that cannot be solved by your solutions.

        Perhaps you see that as a real improvement over my original post. If you want to stake a claim on that hill, go for it.

        And if we are only speaking of the “gun owners” why are you wanting GUN registration, which has nothing to do with the owners but DOES deal with the 360 million guns, eh.

        Typical… when caught in a corner that you painted for yourself you suddenly want to change the story.

  99. avatarWilliam says:

    Mik’s only purpose is to drive up page views and comments. He’s a pet troll. I wish we would starve this troll out with zero comments (yeah, I know I’m violating that) & not legitimizing him by giving him a voice here. If the is really the Truth about guns, why give space to someone this deluded or who is an evil liar?

  100. Hey Mike:

    If you want to know what happens when licensing & registration become mandatory, then look no further than here in the UK.
    What we got was ever greater restrictions on the number & kind of firearms we’re “allowed” to possess, restrictions on both the type & amount of ammunition we can have, removal of personal defence as “good reason” to have a firearm & leading on to complete prohibition on possession of firstly self loading rifles & then all handguns.
    NOT ONE of these incremental restrictions ever led to a reduction in crimes involving firearms, in fact the number of such crimes continued to rise at every turn, with the greatest increase happening IMMEDIATELY AFTER HANDGUNS WERE BANNED.
    Registration inevitably leads to confiscation; end of argument.

    If you don’t believe me, then read this:

    http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html

    Seriously; banning guns & restricting their ownership wont make you safer but it will make criminals safer.

    • avatarcaffeinated says:

      Unfortunately your facts and logic fall on deaf ears. Mikeb is not interested in making the world a safer place. Time and again we present him with real numbers from unbiased sources. He’ll probably just tell you that “correlation is not causation.”

      Although true, how many times does one have to see this correlation of firearms and self defense restriction with an increase of violent crime? Unfortunately you see it first-hand. Australia isn’t much better off with their slough of firearms bans.

      • But when you say “correlation is not causation” it’s fine, right?

        The US has lots of guns AND lots of murders mostly done with guns.

        To me that says it all.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          To me, that comment says it all, in terms of your intellectual rigor.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Sure since my references typically are NOT hypothetical but have actually occurred. Yours are simply “what if” followed by “common sense.”

        • “The US has lots of guns AND lots of murders mostly done with guns. “

          No Mike; it has lots of murders mostly done by criminals using illegally obtained guns, yet possession by a felon often leads to no more than probation.
          It also has lots of murders done by blacks – far more as a percentage of their demographic than committed by Caucasians.
          Most of the victims happen to be convicted felons too.

          So why do you wish to place the burden of more regulation on law abiding, mostly Caucasian gun owners?

          See how silly your “logic” is?

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Mikeb has NO logic. At this point he is clearly trolling.

  101. avatarLongPurple says:

    I’m just wondering.

    Why do we denigrate the importance of the right to vote by saying that if it is given to the incompetent, it will be balanced by those who are rational, moderate, educated, and competent citizens, AND simultaneously say the RKBA must be strictly regulated to keep incompetent citizens from exercising this Constitutional right?
    The occasional violence resulting in the death of some small number of innocent citizens by the lawless and morally deficient is considered to be an unconsionable social evil, which must be dealt with by rigid control of the weapons used in both the commission and prevention of such violence, but the mis-direction of the Nation’s policies by an enfranchised host of incompetents is hailed as “Democracy in action”, even though their votes are purchased by promises by Demagogues for “programs”, ” benefits” , and “entitlements” paid for by the taxes levied on the people who are competent in providing employment for themselves and others, unlike the incompetent, who depend upon others to provide them with work in exchange for payment.

  102. avatarWill says:

    1. licensing of all gun owners after written and psychological testing

    What standards for the tests? This has been done before with other things, such as voting, to prevent undesirables from partaking. Your psychological test idea, is at best, flawed in that a purchaser may be completely mentally competent and healthy, able to pass the tests, to only later break and become dangerous. Your psychological test idea also has the flaw of the criteria can easily be changed, subjectively even, to deny anyone, in clear violation of the rights of the individual per the US Constitution. FLAWED, PRONE TO ABUSE = FAIL

    2. registration of all guns to a licensed gun owner followed by renewal after 3 months and yearly thereafter – the renewal would require producing the gun and its paperwork

    It is a fact of history, that once registration of firearms, or even religious materials are required, that in the near future, the government responsible begins a confiscation of said items, persecution of previous owners of said items (after confiscation), or worse than persecution, the elimination/extermination/deletion/murder of the lives of said owners.

    Secondly, the straw purchaser, could conceivably collect the registered arms long enough to pass the re-registration process and return them after to those illegally possessing. FLAWED = FAIL

    3. closure of the private sale loophole by requiring background checks on all transfers and transference of the registration from one licensed owner to another

    More paperwork for the government to sift through, best case is an inconvenience due to wait times. Worst case, abuse and delays of registration transfers designed to discourage the sale of firearms. PRONE TO ABUSE = FAIL

    4. safe storage laws and severe punishment if a kid or a thief too easily gets one of your guns

    Definition of “too easily” is ambiguous and subjective. Given time, anyone bent on obtaining a weapon that is locked up in some way, shape, or form WILL get it, regardless of the method used to secure it. AMBIGUOUS, PRONE TO ABUSE = FAIL

    Leaving aside for a moment the obvious question of implementation,

    The question of implementation IS paramount to the viability of your proposed plan. In each of my statements regarding them, I point out the points where they can be abused, or are flawed. Only someone who has a blatant disregard or complete ignorance of world history AND/OR the US Constitution would even consider these: Sheeple and those in power who would stand to benefit from such measures.

    • If you reject my suggestions outright, why would you say ” The question of implementation IS paramount?” Wouldn’t it be moot, or academic, or something like that?

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.