Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

I've been thinking of the handgun issue... and instead of banning them outright, which would be unfeasible, would it be acceptable to up the requirements? After all, they don't just lead in homicides,they lead in accidental deaths too, and it would be great to try and insure that only responsible gun owners could purchase them.

Perhaps, in order to purchase a handgun, you need to own another weapon for a period of 5 years without any issues or infractions, pass a safety and personal security course to dispel some of the common misconceptions around them, and demonstrate the ability at the range to fire one safely and accurately enough that if you ever DO need to use one for self defense you won't be as much a menace to everyone else in the process.

Would this be acceptable/constitutional?

[Nadaka]

I've been thinking of the handgun issue... and instead of banning them outright, which would be unfeasible, would it be acceptable to up the requirements? After all, they don't just lead in homicides,they lead in accidental deaths too, and it would be great to try and insure that only responsible gun owners could purchase them.

Perhaps, in order to purchase a handgun, you need to own another weapon for a period of 5 years without any issues or infractions, pass a safety and personal security course to dispel some of the common misconceptions around them, and demonstrate the ability at the range to fire one safely and accurately enough that if you ever DO need to use one for self defense you won't be as much a menace to everyone else in the process.

Would this be acceptable/constitutional?

I don't know if that would be constitutional, it could be for some interpretations, it wouldn't be for others. All the state waiting periods I know of are in the range of 3 or 5 days. 5 years is a pretty big stretch. Unlike a ban, it isn't a permanent restriction on the right to bear arms. But it is a major restriction that goes far beyond any existing waiting period.

The other aspects of the proposal generally fall under gun control laws promoting responsible ownership, and I don't have a problem with them. A lot of people would, but many of them believe that all federal firearms laws of any kind are unconstitutional.

[FearfulJesuit]

And, in fact, I'd argue that they're right. When we adopted the 2nd Amendment, the purpose was to make sure that the average citizen had access to the sort of firepower the government had...a musket.

Federal weapons bans are definitely unconstitutional. The problem, though, is still keeping the 2nd Amendment around.

[mainiac]

And, in fact, I'd argue that they're right. When we adopted the 2nd Amendment, the purpose was to make sure that the average citizen had access to the sort of firepower the government had...a musket.

Federal weapons bans are definitely unconstitutional. The problem, though, is still keeping the 2nd Amendment around.

Sure according to the reading of the day.  But for most of american history it wouldn't be the slightest problem, what with that handy militia clause.  My prediction is a few decades down the line they supreme court will do a second backsies and the individual right to bear arms will soon be forgotten by all but the wingnuts.

[misko27]

This is not a Guns thread, this is politics thread. Politics in the US are not solely about guns, despite what some of you may believe. Therefore, again, this is off-topic. I move for execution of the offeding parties.

[SalmonGod]

This is not a Guns thread, this is politics thread. Politics in the US are not solely about guns, despite what some of you may believe. Therefore, again, this is off-topic. I move for execution of the offeding parties.

By lethal injection...

of lead... 

with a gun.

But there should be thorough deliberation on what kind of gun.

[misko27]

Death by firing squad is illegal. Probably because it's too awesome. Also injection of lead. Therefore, You;'re refering to another country, ehich means it's not the US, which means it's off topic, which means off to Virginia with you mofo.

And in general a military rifle, not assualt mind you, an actual military rifle.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Anonymous has hacked the United States Sentencing Commission site, supposedly because of Aaron Swartz's suicide. They claim to possess some very sensitive information that they're going to release over the next few days.

[FearfulJesuit]

There's a very real possibility of Sweater Vest 2: Electric Boogaloo.

By god, I hope he gets the nomination.

Also, an education proposal I'm ambivalent about. It's certainly a good idea to make parents more responsible in their kids' education, with sticks as well as carrots if need be, but I also feel like this is the wrong way to do it...

[GlyphGryph]

So, MSH, you're saying they defaced a poster and threatened to reveal what learned from looking through the windows? Ohnoes!

[Sheb]

Well, on the one hand, conditional cash transfers have done wonders in countries like Brazil, and something like it could work to get parent involved.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what many poor parents can do. Poors tend not to be educated, and apart from forcing their kids to work, there isn't much they can do to help them. Moreover, grades can be affected by a host of other factors, or learning disabilities, so it seems kinda arbitrary.

And finally, TANF only cover 2 % of the population, so anything that goes through TANF ain't going to have much of an effect.

All in all, while giving families a financial incentive in their kids' success seems like a good idea, this is electoralist welfare-bashing.

[Bauglir]

threatened to reveal what learned from looking through the windows?

This one could potentially mean something, actually

[Frumple]

Also, an education proposal I'm ambivalent about. It's certainly a good idea to make parents more responsible in their kids' education, with sticks as well as carrots if need be, but I also feel like this is the wrong way to do it...

Yeah, actually read that after Sheb chimed in. Frankly, there's nothing to be ambivalent about -- that is an incredibly shitty proposal. Want to know one of the primary contributing factor to low grades are? Parents in a poor financial situation. Want to know how to not fucking ameliorate that factor? Put the parents in a worse financial situation (which, hey, directly puts the kids into a worse situation, too!). That proposal has "I didn't think for two goddamn seconds before opening my idiot mouth" written all over it.

Incentives may be a good thing to have, but sticks of that nature are blatantly counterproductive. There might be room for penalties for poor child performance, but it's going to have to be penalties that don't openly contribute to a known primary cause of said poor performance.

Seriously, good gods alive, someone hit the guy proposing that measure with an idiot bat, like, fifty times in a row. What the hell!

[mainiac]

In Brazil they don't tie welfare to school performance, they have an additional cash transfer tied to school attendance being at least 85%.  That's a far, far cry from linking it to grades.  The entire point to the Brasil program is that the requirements are extremely loose because they aren't trying to judge people, they're trying to help the nearly half the population that was in poverty before this program began.

[misko27]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/gop-leaders-insist-no-overhaul-needed-86757.html?ml=po_r
 
Well this will turn out well for them.