Democratic candidates gun law positions

[Darrell KSR]

5184

[dan_bgblue]

I do not know how the questions were asked, so I always wonder if the assault weapon ban applies to the civilian police forces, federal justice agents, or just the general public. I would guess it would not apply to the LEOs adn federal agents, as most of us know that an assault weapons ban would not prevent the crazies and hardened criminals from getting and using them so the LEOs and fed agents would need to be equally armed to protect themselves and hopefully snuff out the lawbreaking opponent.f

[StuBleedsBlue2]

What I'm in favor of is every gun transaction treated equally, a national registry(accompanied by harsh prison sentences for those owners of guns that are committed in crimes) and finger printing(which I'm in favor for finger printing for so many instances, basically any filing of licenses. I would even be in favor for the government being able to subpoena apps that use finger printing technology for security.

I'm fine with everybody owning as many guns as they want, as long as we know who those people are.

[CitizenBBN]

What I'm in favor of is every gun transaction treated equally, a national registry(accompanied by harsh prison sentences for those owners of guns that are committed in crimes) and finger printing(which I'm in favor for finger printing for so many instances, basically any filing of licenses. I would even be in favor for the government being able to subpoena apps that use finger printing technology for security.

I'm fine with everybody owning as many guns as they want, as long as we know who those people are.

Out of curiosity, what are the benefits of such a registry? Both the gun registry and this apparently much broader national fingerprint registry.

[CitizenBBN]

They have "end straw purchases" as a task/goal/policy.

Uh, that's like having "ending robbery" as a goal. A 'straw purchase' is when someone illegally buys a gun for another person who wouldn't be able to buy it themselves. It's already a felony.

The NSSF and the industry have entire programs to spot and prevent such purchases, all done and paid for with private money.

So what law does one pass to end something that is already illegal?

[CitizenBBN]

BTW the biggie in there, the one that they know will end the gun business for good, is repeal of the law protecting makers and sellers from being sued for every gun every used in any crime. That law was passed b/c the anti-gunners in the 80s hit upon the strategy of litigating the gun industry out of business, trying to make them responsible for the misuse of a product.

What they want to do is the equivalent of suing Ford Motor Co. when a drunk driver kills someone behind the wheel of one of their cars. That's all that law prevents, and if it ever falls the 2nd Amendment is doomed.

[dan_bgblue]

Thanks CBBN. Only one candidate did not support the idea of repealing the Act.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Out of curiosity, what are the benefits of such a registry? Both the gun registry and this apparently much broader national fingerprint registry.

We register vehicles, people, pets among other things in the name of safety. I think national databases of all registrations, if monitored correctly, serves a wide range of functions from a checks and balance to a source of tranparency for any person to access if they want to know what people are doing that live in their neighborhoods, cities and states. Just for the sole purpose of gun ownership, I really want to know if my neighbor is accumulating a stockpile.

The fingerprint collection is purely for a law enforcement database. It doesn't stop there either for me, as I think everybody's DNA should be on file too. As law enforcement demands are increasing, and cities becoming less able to pay for them, I'm in favor of these types of collections to make their jobs easier.

It's really part of my belief, that everyone in this country needs to be on record.

There are more reasons I favor these things that play into other radical beliefs that I have, such as eliminating all forms of taxes except a national sales tax(although my version is much different that those typically proposed) that would turn the IRS into a rebate center and accountants would be intermediaries to collect those. Other radical ideas would be to tax churches through a registration process(another revenue stream for accountants), outsource the welfare system to tear it down and rebuild it, index veteran care to defense spending.

My favorite radical idea, though(and this would put the accountants that are no longer needed for tax purposes back to work), would be to create an independent audit conglomerate that's only function is to audit the finances and operational processes of the U.S. government that are selected by the parties and the people by election.

These ideas, though, would basically be forming a new country.

[CitizenBBN]

You didn't list a single benefit in that post. Knowing what your neighbor is doing is a good thing? would it prevent a crime or problem? where in the Constitution or any associated writings is there discussion of the right to know what your neighbors are doing?

It did however cause every single Founding father from Hamilton to Payne to spin in his grave.

[CitizenBBN]

Thanks CBBN. Only one candidate did not support the idea of repealing the Act.

The one who, after this race is over, still has to get elected in New Hampshire, which despite being pretty left leaning overall is still a generally pro gun state due to the hunting community and more rural nature.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

You didn't list a single benefit in that post. Knowing what your neighbor is doing is a good thing? would it prevent a crime or problem? where in the Constitution or any associated writings is there discussion of the right to know what your neighbors are doing?

It did however cause every single Founding father from Hamilton to Payne to spin in his grave.


They're benefits in my opinion, maybe not to you.

I'm not to worried about what the founding fathers would think about my thoughts. I think they've been "spinning in their graves" for a long time now. We all like to think the founding fathers were hand in hand, but there were differences the second the ink dried, that still affect us today. Not to mention, they were very flawed individuals capable of great things.

So, I guess you're not in favor of criminal registration, such as sexual predators? We already have safeguards in place that tells us about our neighbors. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we can't have national registries either.

I must assume that you're also against, "if you see something, say something"? If I see that my neighbor is acting strange and I know that he/she is stockpiling an Arsenal, there's a pretty good chance that me saying something can deter a crime.

[suncat05]

Registering sexual predators and registering guns is apples-to-oranges. I WANT sexual predators registered, but I DO NOT want one single solitary lawful gun owner included in any registry. What's the difference, you ask? Sexual predators intend to do harm to someone, be it men, women, or children. I have never met a lawful gun owner that INTENDS to do anyone any harm, unless their lives, the lives of their families, or their lawfully owned property is threatened.
And last I heard, it is not against the law (at least here in Florida!) to own more than one gun.
And I am certainly not against the idea of "if you see something, say something", because sometimes that is how violations of the law are discovered. If that cowardly neighbor of the Farooks had said something, perhaps some, if not all of those folks that were murdered would still be alive. But that neighbor was too much of a chickens&%t to say anything, because he was "afraid of being labeled a "racist". What a coward!

[CitizenBBN]

They're benefits in my opinion, maybe not to you.

I'm not to worried about what the founding fathers would think about my thoughts. I think they've been "spinning in their graves" for a long time now. We all like to think the founding fathers were hand in hand, but there were differences the second the ink dried, that still affect us today. Not to mention, they were very flawed individuals capable of great things.

So, I guess you're not in favor of criminal registration, such as sexual predators? We already have safeguards in place that tells us about our neighbors. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we can't have national registries either.

I must assume that you're also against, "if you see something, say something"? If I see that my neighbor is acting strange and I know that he/she is stockpiling an Arsenal, there's a pretty good chance that me saying something can deter a crime.

You opinion is irrelevant. Like most liberals you confuse opinion with objective analysis. Just b/c someone values a thing doesn't mean policy should value it.

You have the right to life, liberty and property. To the extent you knowing more about your neighbors doesn't advance any of those things, but DOES limit it for your neighbors, it is not a benefit.

You do however effectively draw the distinction by bringing up criminal registration. See, a CRIMINAL has violated the social contract and has lost by his own actions the full protections of the social contract. He has done something that forces his rights to be curtailed.

You want to curtail the liberty of everyone for your own personal satisfaction whether they did anything wrong or not. Innocent until proven guilty means nothing to you, just register everything about everyone so we can keep good tabs on people.

That kind of concentration of information in the hands of the state is beyond dangerous, and the fact that you dont' care about the guidance of the Founders is not exactly a surprise to me. But the system is set up to prevent the concentration of that information because information is power and power corrupts.

Your position ignores the most basic tenets of good governance and freedom and human behavior, and promotes the massive concentration of power within the state under the assumption it will somehow be used in some benign and positive way. Since that has never happened once in human history for very long the chances are slim.

[CitizenBBN]

As for your "stockpiling an arsenal" argument, you'll find if you review all these crimes, from gang shootings to mass shootings, that most of them don't even involve an "arsenal".

First, what is an "arsenal"? Five guns, ten, twenty, fifty? How much ammo is too much?

Second, while some of these people have accumulated a lot of ammo, few have really accumulated an "arsenal" compared to the number of guns owned by the average avid shooter or hunter. The San Bernadino people had only 2 in their name, 4 total with the two provided by their co-conspirator. To pick a right wing one, the South Carolina guy had 1, at Sandy Hook the kid had just a couple that he got from his mother.

Only the Colorado shooter really had amassed much, and his was mostly ammo. The San Bernadino terrorists amassed bombs, something your registration scheme would miss entirely.

So your registration scheme would do little or nothing to actually help identify high risk individuals for these attacks, which is why I asked for benefits. So far you haven't listed any other than your personal piece of mind, which itself is based on a false assumption.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Thanks for calling my opinion irrelevant.. Why did you ask for it?

I'm flipping the question. What HARM would a national registry cause? It does nothing to infringe upon anybody's rights. You've conviently left out the fact that we already have registrations for cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, pets, among other things. Those are all things of public record. What is wrong about adding guns to the list?

If I see my neighbor sitting in his back yard, drinking all day and he goes and drive, I'm calling the cops. If I know that my neighbor has aggressive dogs and is showing patterns that indicate he may be using them for fighting, I'm calling the cops. If I see my neighbor acting erratically and unusual, I'm calling the cops, that is if I know if he has guns in his house. Otherwise, I'm probably looking the other way.

Is that profiling, you betcha, but you right wingers have said its OK if you feel that you're safety is threatened, so why can't it be ok to profile gun owners? How am I supposed to tell if that person is really a good guy with a gun or someone that's losing it?

People seeing something and telling will deter crimes. That's an extreme benefit.

[bigsky]

Montana will never vote for any of that. Not even our Democrats will. We have already passed a law that says guns made in Montana and owned by Montanans are exempt from Federal regulation.

[CitizenBBN]

Thanks for calling my opinion irrelevant.. Why did you ask for it?

I'm flipping the question. What HARM would a national registry cause? It does nothing to infringe upon anybody's rights. You've conviently left out the fact that we already have registrations for cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, pets, among other things. Those are all things of public record. What is wrong about adding guns to the list?

If I see my neighbor sitting in his back yard, drinking all day and he goes and drive, I'm calling the cops. If I know that my neighbor has aggressive dogs and is showing patterns that indicate he may be using them for fighting, I'm calling the cops. If I see my neighbor acting erratically and unusual, I'm calling the cops, that is if I know if he has guns in his house. Otherwise, I'm probably looking the other way.

Is that profiling, you betcha, but you right wingers have said its OK if you feel that you're safety is threatened, so why can't it be ok to profile gun owners? How am I supposed to tell if that person is really a good guy with a gun or someone that's losing it?

People seeing something and telling will deter crimes. That's an extreme benefit.

Your opinion isn't irrelevant, but you take things that can be decided objectively and say it's opinion. It's not. It's not opinion that 2+2 = 5, it's simply wrong.

To have benefits you have to give me some kind of existing or future harm that will be in some way improved. Something substantive beyond opinion. It's not that your opinion is irrelevant, it's that anyone's "opinion" is irrelevant, it's facts that are required for policy. Substantive benefits.

The harm would be incalculable.

First, it violates the fundamental rights of all Americans. there is a fundamental right to privacy in this country that is a goal and positive in itself. For it to be lessened without any real or substantive benefit is an inherent harm within the framework on which this nation was founded.

Second, as I said it is a concentration of information and power in the hands of the state, which is also inherently harmful. Power corrupts.

Third, it will form the basis for the next step of destroying the 2nd Amendment, which is confiscation. There is ample empirical evidence for that, and it's also pretty obvious.

Fourth, it is tyranny of the majority. This nation is built on protecting the rights of all Americans to engage in whatever they choose so long as it doesn't harm others. Not so long as they don't THINK it's OK or may harm them, it has to actually create some kind of harm.

I can go on, but I have to finish some work tonight. I'll list more later, but suffice to say it's an attack on the very foundation of liberty in this country.

Now quickly for your analogies. The drinking one fails b/c the correct analogy would be that you know your neighbor has a big bar of booze and then you see him get in a car. The drinking part isn't applicable here. That would be like saying you see your neighbor load up a bunch of guns and take target practice at pictures of schools and then he gets in his car with them. Very different things.

Re the dogs, same thing. Again you site some kind of observation of actual behavior, not that he generically just has dogs.

As for guns in the house, you'd give a pass if the guy was acting erratically but wasn't on some internet search as having guns? Boy are you naive. Lots of ways around that simple situation for anyone intent on harming people. In San Bernadino they used guns from a co-conspirator.

That's not just profiling, it's extremely hypocritical for someone who says we can't call this a war with Islam but anyone with a gun is suddenly a risk, and it's of course also just over the top reactionary paranoia as opposed to some kind of objective profiling.

Your analogy would be that someone sees someone who looks Muslim or wears certain clothing and they call the cops. I hate to tell you but with 50 million gun owners in America that's basically what you are suggesting, that 50 million homes in this country are in your mind some kind of potential "radical Christian".

Profiling by law enforcement to focus on the highest risks isn't a problem, but what you're talking about is a 1984 type police state where neighbors watchdog everyone for anything they personally deem suspicious. what a recipe for disaster.

You really think you'll "see something" in a neighbor's behavior that may own a gun that clues you in they are going to commit a crime or lose it? Do you really think most criminals who use guns actually have obtained them in a way that they'd be registered?

Like everything else only the law abiding will be registred, and of those only about 1/100000th of a percent of them are a threat.

By your reasoning we should have a national registry of Muslims b/c they are in a group that, like us crazy gun owners, may be a potential threat. So we need to get them all on a list so we know if any are in our neighborhood and keep an eye on them.

No harm, right? we already register vehicles and such, so why not register our religion?

You are way out there my friend. way way out there. Though at least you havent' called for repealing the first amendment, so there must be some hope. :)

[KeithKSR]

What I'm in favor of is every gun transaction treated equally, a national registry(accompanied by harsh prison sentences for those owners of guns that are committed in crimes) and finger printing(which I'm in favor for finger printing for so many instances, basically any filing of licenses. I would even be in favor for the government being able to subpoena apps that use finger printing technology for security.

I'm fine with everybody owning as many guns as they want, as long as we know who those people are.

Criminals will be lining up to comply.

[KeithKSR]

Out of curiosity, what are the benefits of such a registry? Both the gun registry and this apparently much broader national fingerprint registry.

Confiscation is their goal and the registry is to accomplish that goal.

[CitizenBBN]

Criminals will be lining up to comply.

It's OK, Stu's plan misses that 90% of guns used in crimes arent' really "owned", they were stolen or bought on the black market from someone who stole them, so they aren't really "gun owners". Gun possessors yes, but ownership clearly implies a property right which doesn't exist here b/c they aren't really that person's at all.

[KeithKSR]

Thanks for calling my opinion irrelevant.. Why did you ask for it?

I'm flipping the question. What HARM would a national registry cause? It does nothing to infringe upon anybody's rights. You've conviently left out the fact that we already have registrations for cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, pets, among other things. Those are all things of public record. What is wrong about adding guns to the list?

If I see my neighbor sitting in his back yard, drinking all day and he goes and drive, I'm calling the cops. If I know that my neighbor has aggressive dogs and is showing patterns that indicate he may be using them for fighting, I'm calling the cops. If I see my neighbor acting erratically and unusual, I'm calling the cops, that is if I know if he has guns in his house. Otherwise, I'm probably looking the other way.

Is that profiling, you betcha, but you right wingers have said its OK if you feel that you're safety is threatened, so why can't it be ok to profile gun owners? How am I supposed to tell if that person is really a good guy with a gun or someone that's losing it?

People seeing something and telling will deter crimes. That's an extreme benefit.


There is no national database for pets. There is also no national database for vehicles, there are state databases of registered vehicles (all are not registered) for fee and tax purposes.

The same people who want a national gun registry think we should allow everyone to vote without any identification, or even be a registered voter. They also do not want a registry of immigrants, nor do they want existing immigration laws upheld.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Your opinion isn't irrelevant, but you take things that can be decided objectively and say it's opinion. It's not. It's not opinion that 2+2 = 5, it's simply wrong.

To have benefits you have to give me some kind of existing or future harm that will be in some way improved. Something substantive beyond opinion. It's not that your opinion is irrelevant, it's that anyone's "opinion" is irrelevant, it's facts that are required for policy. Substantive benefits.

The harm would be incalculable.

First, it violates the fundamental rights of all Americans. there is a fundamental right to privacy in this country that is a goal and positive in itself. For it to be lessened without any real or substantive benefit is an inherent harm within the framework on which this nation was founded.

Second, as I said it is a concentration of information and power in the hands of the state, which is also inherently harmful. Power corrupts.

Third, it will form the basis for the next step of destroying the 2nd Amendment, which is confiscation. There is ample empirical evidence for that, and it's also pretty obvious.

Fourth, it is tyranny of the majority. This nation is built on protecting the rights of all Americans to engage in whatever they choose so long as it doesn't harm others. Not so long as they don't THINK it's OK or may harm them, it has to actually create some kind of harm.

I can go on, but I have to finish some work tonight. I'll list more later, but suffice to say it's an attack on the very foundation of liberty in this country.

Now quickly for your analogies. The drinking one fails b/c the correct analogy would be that you know your neighbor has a big bar of booze and then you see him get in a car. The drinking part isn't applicable here. That would be like saying you see your neighbor load up a bunch of guns and take target practice at pictures of schools and then he gets in his car with them. Very different things.

Re the dogs, same thing. Again you site some kind of observation of actual behavior, not that he generically just has dogs.

As for guns in the house, you'd give a pass if the guy was acting erratically but wasn't on some internet search as having guns? Boy are you naive. Lots of ways around that simple situation for anyone intent on harming people. In San Bernadino they used guns from a co-conspirator.

That's not just profiling, it's extremely hypocritical for someone who says we can't call this a war with Islam but anyone with a gun is suddenly a risk, and it's of course also just over the top reactionary paranoia as opposed to some kind of objective profiling.

Your analogy would be that someone sees someone who looks Muslim or wears certain clothing and they call the cops. I hate to tell you but with 50 million gun owners in America that's basically what you are suggesting, that 50 million homes in this country are in your mind some kind of potential "radical Christian".

Profiling by law enforcement to focus on the highest risks isn't a problem, but what you're talking about is a 1984 type police state where neighbors watchdog everyone for anything they personally deem suspicious. what a recipe for disaster.

You really think you'll "see something" in a neighbor's behavior that may own a gun that clues you in they are going to commit a crime or lose it? Do you really think most criminals who use guns actually have obtained them in a way that they'd be registered?

Like everything else only the law abiding will be registred, and of those only about 1/100000th of a percent of them are a threat.

By your reasoning we should have a national registry of Muslims b/c they are in a group that, like us crazy gun owners, may be a potential threat. So we need to get them all on a list so we know if any are in our neighborhood and keep an eye on them.

No harm, right? we already register vehicles and such, so why not register our religion?

You are way out there my friend. way way out there. Though at least you havent' called for repealing the first amendment, so there must be some hope. :)

I would tend to agree, but that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that anyone who is showing abnormal, erratic behavior that is a gun owner is a risk. You're missing half of the equation.

I haven't called for appealing the 2nd amendment(which I am a supporter of, but along with my beliefs of the entire Constitution, must be bounded) or many of the others either. However, I do believe in a system of open interpretation that calls for laws framed around the Constitution as it applies to today's society and risks, a loose constructionalist, or Hamiltonian(as the man is quite trendy these days).

I know that some of my beliefs are out there and I have never said that there's any hope for some of them coming to, even though they'd work. However, generally speaking, I'm not way, way out there. I can say the same about many on here. There's not one America, it's a melting pot of cultures, ideas and beliefs. I only really only hope that we can function day to day, year to year without all of this bogus crap and irrational fears, but I don't think that's ever possible.

[CitizenBBN]

You're missing the half of the equation, which is that being a gun owner isn't a qualification for being a risk. Anyone can obtain what they need rather quickly, or make bombs that are untraceable, etc.. Owning a gun isn't any indication of heightened risk of acting out, even with guns. Further, there are so many gun owners, and thousands being added every day, that it's like saying people who have cars or blue jeans are a higher risk. It's really not much of a factor now, and if there was registration it would be even less of one b/c people who do these things would obtain the guns without registration and do so explicitly.

There is no such thing really as a 'loose constructionist'. when you start talking about "today's society" that's all just a euphemism for thinking we know today more than the Founders. Nothing could be more dangerous to our nation IMO. Absolutely nothing. it is a hubris to think we could ever better construct a model of governance than they could, and even more of one to think that our world of internet and cell phones somehow makes us different than the world they faced. if anything the need for their views of liberty and individualism are all the more necessary than ever.

Your ideas would work, if your goal is to lay a very solid foundation for the eventual american fascist state. Everyone being fully indexed at a genetic level would be a great start for them, and for the hackers who would eventually end up with all that info as well.

[Doc]

There is no national database for pets. There is also no national database for vehicles, there are state databases of registered vehicles (all are not registered) for fee and tax purposes.

The same people who want a national gun registry think we should allow everyone to vote without any identification, or even be a registered voter. They also do not want a registry of immigrants, nor do they want existing immigration laws upheld.

Thank you. I always found it odd that the people who were against any type of registration and ID to vote fight for registration to own a gun. Seems both are given in the constitution yet the ability to vote should be TOTALLY unfettered while gun ownership should be highly regulated

[UKHistory]

One reason to move to the great state of Montana.


Montana will never vote for any of that. Not even our Democrats will. We have already passed a law that says guns made in Montana and owned by Montanans are exempt from Federal regulation.

[KeithKSR]

Out of curiosity, what are the benefits of such a registry? Both the gun registry and this apparently much broader national fingerprint registry.

Libs like it because it means bigger government and a bigger big brother factor.