townsend
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 5,377
I wasn't aware that making someone feel endangered was considered domestic violence, that seems like a ridiculous and subjective standard, that doesn't really meet the dictionary definition of violence. I still think there are levels of violence that may not qualify as felonious (although that also may vary from state to state) that are a big enough red flag to justify blacklisting from gun sales.You still don't understand the crowded theater exception to freedom of speech at all. That exception is made because it creates an immediate risk of harm. Meaning, once you yell fire in a movie theater, no other action is needed for harm to now be created.
Your comparisons with gun regulation do not compare in any way to that exception for freedom of speech. If you want to bypass the constitution your trying to do it the wrong way because of a lack of understanding of constitutional law. The act of selling a gun without any regulation or giving a person a gun does not create a immediate risk of harm, because there has to be additional steps taken to create harm to any person. Are you understanding the difference? If you want to ignore the constitution feel free, but you're going about it the wrong way.
I disagree with your regulations too. You shouldn't blacklist people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Misdemeanor domestic violence at least in the State of Missouri doesn't even require a person to make physical contact with another person. All it means is that you placed a person in immediate apprehension of harm. Many of which cases were two people arguing and one thought they would gain an upperhand by calling the police. I could understand felony domestic violence because that requires some sort of actual physical harm being done to another person. But we already have felony laws for that reason.
I guess I can sit here and pick apart the rest of your proposals but waiting periods are fine. I don't really take issue with that. If you're going to a store to buy a guy, I can't imagine a scenario where you would need it immediately. Training is a waste of time and I think it would be abused pretextually to prevent individuals from being allowed to have a fire arm. Insurance companies already rape America, I'd prefer not to hand them another item where they can take everyone's money and almost never have to pay out on a policy.
Training could be abused, but that isn't an excuse to ignore training. I don't think that ridiculous safety regulations are fair for abortion clinics, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't Be required to have licensed doctors that went through extensive training to do those procedures. There's around 500 deaths a year due to gun related accidents. When you have a tool that can be (and frequently is) used to take human life, skimping on the training is absolutely not an option.
I would agree that some kind of cap should be placed on gun carrier's insurance. Not that anyone writing a bill for gun control would necessarily be placing a gun owner's rights above an insurance company's bottom line. But accidental shootings are way too common to not expect a carrier to assume responsibility for the damage a gun can do. I have my issues with his car insurance is regulated, but I'm sure if a dumb 17 year old ever rear ends you, you'll be glad they're obligated to have insurance.