Bill of rights Re-write - Page 3

03-21-2004, 18:23

Provide some sort of incentive for people to become trained. Complete firearms training and the state pays your license plate fees every year (example).

**Roguish Lawyer** · 03-21-2004, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Greenhat
Provide some sort of incentive for people to become trained. Complete firearms training and the state pays your license plate fees every year (example).

Incentives? The horror! You just made the list, buddy. LOL

Farmer40 · 03-21-2004, 18:53

The framework already exists to provide for relatively non intrusive registration (Oh my!) of weapons and for owners qualification to operate same. The DMV in the various states registers legally purchased and operated vehicles of all sorts. They have systems to inspect same annually to insure adequate standards of safety are met. They have systems in place to test and qualify citizens to operate all sorts of vehicles. The processes closely parallel those which could be emplaced to ensure that our citizens RESPONSIBLY keep and bear arms. Illegal or irresponsible use of firearms would still be punishable by law.
It is, after all, that sort of use of arms, not mere ownership, that injures or harms society.

Jeeze, you could even issue license plates to be attached to all registered weapons. Make 'em the size of car plates so you could tell at a distance whether or not they were legal. And it would make them really hard to conceal. What a concept!

longrange1947 · 03-21-2004, 20:22

Quote:

And it would make them really hard to conceal. What a concept!

So much for the Comncealed to carry permit! Of course then all the muggers could tell when you were and were not carrying.

Wow what a concept!

DunbarFC · 03-22-2004, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Greenhat
Provide some sort of incentive for people to become trained. Complete firearms training and the state pays your license plate fees every year (example).

That's currently the law here in Massachusetts

You have to take a State Police sanctioned NRA safety course in order to obtain a firearms license

Surgicalcric · 03-22-2004, 10:36

DunbarFC:

Is that for a CC permit or to own any firearm?

DunbarFC · 03-22-2004, 10:42

It's to own

The course itself costs $250 to take

Then the cost of the license itself

DoctorDoom · 03-22-2004, 16:37

x

longrange1947 · 03-22-2004, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by DunbarFC
It's to own

The course itself costs $250 to take

Then the cost of the license itself

So those that can't afford the 250.00 plus license fee is not entitled to self defense?

Yes, this is a fair and equatable method of preventing the "wrong" types from owning weapons.

Surgicalcric · 03-22-2004, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by DoctorDoom
I can feel the yoke of your oppression being fitted for my neck already...

How so?

Surgicalcric · 03-22-2004, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by longrange1947
So those that can't afford the 250.00 plus license fee is not entitled to self defense?

Yes, this is a fair and equatable method of preventing the "wrong" types from owning weapons.

I agree.

For 350.00 a person could take a tactical pistol course. I would like to see what the course consists of.

We are talking about the state in which Sen Kennedy owns, errr I mean serves. Not that I think back on it I am not really that suprised.

Edited: remove head from 4th POC.

DanUCSB · 03-23-2004, 02:54

That (the high fees required for legal gun ownership) is exactly the technique that many of the more-pragmatic gun-control activists are trying right now. It's clear that there's too much opposition amongst the rest of us to push through many more actual bans or obvious laws, so they're taking a hint from the anti-tobacco forces. That tactic involves a three-pronged approach: first, stigmatize the product and users of the product. Anti-smoking people have done this quite well, as have many of the anti-gun folks in certain parts of the country (where I live, for instance). Second, fire class-action lawsuits at the manufacturers. This has worked fairly well for the anti-tobacco folks, relatively poorly for the anti-gun folks. Third, raise taxes to change behavior/price people out. These taxes may be in the form of the ever-popular 'sin tax', such as those that make a pack of cigarettes out here cost $5, or in the form of 'stealth taxes', like the aforementioned $350 in fees to purchase a firearm.

Sad thing is, it's pretty effective. It requires a lot of scaremongering, but scaremongering works often enough. It's the classic slippery slope. But as soon as you've got something demonized, people don't seem to have many problems with taxing it into submission, even if it does make self-defense the sole province of the rich (who can afford the fees) and the powerful (who can swing the licenses).

For what it's worth? I agree with The Reaper's version of the Second Amendment.

Oh, hell, I'm getting ahead of myself. First post. Been lurking a long time. Let me introduce myself. My name's Dan. Got out of the Army after four years as an 11B in Korea and Campbell, currently attending UC Santa Barbara to get my history degree, with an aim of re-enlisting under 18X. Pleased to meet y'all.

--Dan

DunbarFC · 03-23-2004, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by longrange1947
So those that can't afford the 250.00 plus license fee is not entitled to self defense?

Yes, this is a fair and equatable method of preventing the "wrong" types from owning weapons.

There is a reason we are called "Taxachusetts"

As for what the course is according to the instructor that I asked it's an 8 hour safety and how to class

Surgicalcric · 03-23-2004, 11:42

$250.00 for a safety class...I dont friggin think so.

DunbarFC · 03-23-2004, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Surgicalcric
$250.00 for a safety class...I dont friggin think so.

I said no as a result myself

I am sure part of it is the guys fee, which I don't mind paying someone for their time. But it's still an outrageous amount

But that's what I get for living where I do