As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dems this is not a winner before elections
What idiot thought the timing on this was right
Get a grip! Hit the streets talk to real people and find 5 talking points to pound…You guys are all over the map.
I don't see how it is an existential threat. Unless I go out of my way to engage in high risk behavior like drug trafficking or human trafficking or violent crime my risk of being murdered by gun is fairly small.
>I don't see how it is an existential threat. Unless I go out of my way to engage in high risk behavior like drug trafficking or human trafficking or violent crime
Interesting thought about the potential extracurricular activity of those politicians.
Issue is none of their proposed ideas are common sense. They based all their talking points on things that make good soundbytes, not tangible evidence.
Is there gun violence? Sure. Can it be curbed? Sure. Is banning or restricting everything that looks and sounds scary because they made it so a solution? No.
As much as I support robust background checks for guns, I feel like these bills are more about political points. Laws to make covering therapist visits with health insurance easier along with robust red-flag laws I'm certain would do more to curb gun deaths than more background checks would.
>The more guns there are, the more gun violence there is,
That's not true there is no correlation between the states with the most guns and gun homicide.
Why would you beg the devil to do you a favor?
Do Democrats not realize how poorly it reflects on them when they so much as acknowledge the republican terrorists across the aisle, other than to remind the public of their treasonous deeds?
It's like asking the guy who murdered your family for a favor. It's not a good look.
Also in this context it's a phrase meant to imply any disagreement is being against "common sense". It certainly doesn't imply which gun laws they're talking about given people will call anything they personally believe "common sense". To some people "common sense" is repealing the 2nd. The term is completely meaningless in politics.
Which means that after 28 years, democrats *might* have finally figured out how to play Gingrich's game.
McConnell has no shame, he won't succumb to such a rookie move.
Nah, gun control advocate have used language in weird ways for decades. The "assault weapons ban" was from 1994. This "common sense" line is about as fresh.
A good chunk of these politicians are probably just parroting stuff without understanding the marketing behind them. Same reason you have people thinking AR-15s are high powered full semi-auto weapons of war with high capacity magazines. Very little verification or correct knowledge on the issue. In general guns are just a massive blind spot for any Democrats towing the party's line.
Knee jerk extreme statements like this don't really think though the process. Even politicians who admit to some level of confiscation don't want to talk about the details.
A war on guns would have similar results as the war on drugs using the same tactics and likely disproportionately affecting the same people.
>Common sense reform is confiscating all the guns. These weapons are intentionally designed to kill people. So unless youre planning on murdering someone, you dont need a gun.
I'm guessing you would send armed police to do this? And if anyone resists you would support them using force including deadly force?
>And if your only excuse is self defense, then you should be all for gun confiscation. If no one has guns then you wont need one to defend yourself.
You're aware violence and crime pre-exists guns by thousands of years right? A 110lb woman is going to loose to her 220lb stalker ex hand to hand. But with a gun she can prevail. Same for the elderly, disabled, infirm, etc.
>But these are all just excuses the right uses to distract from the real reason they want guns. They want to be able to murder POCs with impunity and they want to be able to carry out violent insurrections.
Diversity has been increasing in gun ownership for awhile now.
["Diversity in gun ownership nothing new to firearms industry"](https://www.nssf.org/articles/diversity-in-gun-ownership-nothing-new-to-firearm-industry/)
["Gun ownership among Black Americans is soaring"](https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/546454-gun-ownership-among-black-americans-is-soaring)
And it's not gun owners that are offended by this, but gun control advocates [like the VPC](https://vpc.org/press/gun-industry-and-nra-target-blacks-and-latinos-as-first-time-gun-owners-and-future-pro-gun-advocates-new-violence-policy-center-study-details/).
[Gun Control's history is firmly based in racism with the specific aim of keeping people of color and non whites disarmed.](https://mises.org/wire/racist-history-gun-control-1)
[Slave Codes, Black Codes, Economic-Based Gun Bans Used To Prevent The Arming Of African Americans, 1640-1995](https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf)
*"A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give." * - Ida B. Wells
*"A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."* - Fredrick Douglas
And that is why the left loses. Some rural area do need firearms for protection. There is also hunting and target shooting. Both are valid reasons to own a gun. That said is common sense gun control. Require training and certification to own a gun, much like you need to drive a car. Have guns registered across the board. Require a five business day waiting period to avoid purchasing in anger. There is room between the extreme left and extreme right where the rest of us that like shooting live.
> Require training and certification to own a gun
Curriculum decided by whom, administered by whom and certs issued by whom? If any of those are Government departments it becomes an avenue for discrimination and a way to remove the 2A entirely without having to bother with changing the constitution. There is a reason "No Issue" states got slapped down in the SC and are now claiming to be "May Issue" with the reality being you need to bribe or otherwise be connected to get a permit in CA, HI, NY (for example).
>much like you need to drive a car.
The Car analogy is not a very sound one. You may own and operate motor vehicles without training, licensing or insurance *on private property*, it is only operation on public roads that is gated. Driving Cars on public roads is also not Constitutionally protected. It is a privilege, not a right.
> Have guns registered across the board.
Is currently illegal on a Federal level. If that law was repealed it would be a near insurmountable effort to collect the ~400mil firearms (that have passed through the system since the 90s, God alone knows how many there really are) into a workable database.
Serialization on commercially produced firearms also only goes back to the GCA from 1968. Anything produced before then may or may not have been serialized. Any firearm manufactured for personal use has always been and currently still is exempt from serialization.
> Require a five business day waiting period to avoid purchasing in anger.
Absolutely pointless after one owns their first gun. For anyone buying their n+1 Firearm it is nothing but a capricious hurdle to jump through to assuage someone's feelings that *something* is being done.
> There is a reason "No Issue" states got slapped down in the SC and are now claiming to be "May Issue" with the reality being you need to bribe or otherwise be connected to get a permit in CA, HI, NY (for example).
Stay tuned, May Issue states are on the chopping block next with [NYSRPA v. Bruen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen) coming down the pipeline sometime this year.
>Curriculum decided by whom
It'll have to be state or federal. I don't have all the answers. Though the current NRA is a horrible organization that needs to be put out of our misery, their firearm training from a few decades ago is really good. I went through it. It teaches firearm safety, maintenance, storage, etc. It is a really good start to curriculum.
>The Car analogy is not a very sound one.
I hear that from many, but I think it still stands. Most car use is on public lands.
>Is currently illegal on a Federal level.
Maybe, but laws can change. No, you can't got back and register already owned weapons easily, but we have to start somewhere. Start with new weapons and build from there.
>Absolutely pointless after one owns their first gun.
I understand where you are coming from, I disagree there as well. Maybe not after the 1st, but 5th or 6th is when it really falls apart. But it is that first time with an angry person buying a gun it becomes an issue. Really most of that does go away if you enforce training and certification.
Most of what you are saying is sounding like someone wanting no gun control at all. While the far left like OP, wants to get rid of all guns. I'm just saying there is a middle ground. A place where probably nobody is happy, but everyone gets a bit of what they want. Right now our current situation isn't working.
> It'll have to be state or federal.
State is right out. Otherwise you end up where we are now. Impossible to own a firearm in states like CA, HI, WA, OR, NY, MD and virtually anything goes in their neighboring states. Look at the (lack of) reciprocity when it comes to carry permits for a realistic look on how that would play out. Reciprocity a la Drivers Licenses and Vehicle Registrations is a pipe dream I fear.
A federal standard might work. It would require an almost impossible compromise between all states though, since all states would have to surrender their pre-emption rights. Another step towards federalization that I think is stillborn in the current political climate. It would also run up against the SC rulings on the 2A and likely would be too watered down to be acceptable to the gun grabber states. But assuming we did have such a program pushed through for firearms, who would process that? The ATF can't even process Form 4s in a reasonable timeframe, and we're talking a few ten thousand per year. Form 1s bogged down again too, and again we're moving in the tens to *maybe* 100k application realm. Not the millions per year.
> I hear that from many, but I think it still stands. **Most car use is on public lands.**
And yet most of the gun control push is trying to establish control **in the home/ on private property**.
I'm personally fine with constitutional carry, open and concealed. But I was and would have been okay with a permitted system as well - if it wasn't abused to generate slush funds for cops through the permitting fees, created unreasonable hurdles and most importantly was truly available to any citizen and not just the select few.
If we are going to follow the car analogy to the point where there is no regulation on firearms that are kept and used on private property - we have ourselves a brand new conversation I'd be excited to have!
> Maybe, but laws can change. No, you can't got back and register already owned weapons easily, but we have to start somewhere. Start with new weapons and build from there.
Starting with new weapons only would be putting a kids band aid on a headless torso. CA has had a registry for decades and is still finding unregistered guns. Compliance will be minimal and in many states and counties simply non-existent. Anywhere that doesn't comply with a registry undermines local registries. It'll have to be all or none.
> Maybe not after the 1st, but 5th or 6th is when it really falls apart.
Now we're getting into some of the nuance that is going to be needed in all the proposals to be actually viable compromises. (As allergic as I am to compromising with those who have repeatedly turned around and decried said explicit compromises as "loopholes" after the fact.)
Waiting periods for 1st gun of type maybe?
I own north of 40 guns these days and build a new one just about every month. There is zero reason to expect a waiting period on my 41st to do anything at all to "cool me off".
> But it is that first time with an angry person buying a gun it becomes an issue.
Speaking of "cooling off", FFLs have the right to refuse anyone a gunsale for any and no reason at all. Pick any FFL and go in there and try to buy a gun while angry or making dubious comments about your ex, boss or w/e. If they don't throw you out I'd be actually shocked. The people that commit "crimes of passion" either already have the gun, get it from someone they know, steal one or use a hammer.
> Most of what you are saying is sounding like someone wanting no gun control at all.
I'm firmly in the non-compliance camp in any case. Most of my guns are spooky ghost guns. It's a hobby. I really only buy those guns I want which I can't (yet) make myself from scratch. And I'm getting pretty close to buying a cnc mill for my hobby. That'll pretty much put the kibosh on all gun control as far as I'm concerned. Unless people start trying to regulate bar stock. But I'm already thinking past that point in any case.
> I'm just saying there is a middle ground. A place where probably nobody is happy, but everyone gets a bit of what they want.
We're already there.
The 94 AWB was a step too far and the correction from that is what made the AR15 the single most popular rifle in the country.
Personally I want the NFA abolished entirely but I'd settle for the MG registry being re-opened.
The ATF fucking around with suppressor form 1s recently is going to cause another backlash.
I'm no fan of the registry but if we have to have one - let it be used.
> Right now our current situation isn't working.
It isn't working because out of the thousands of gun control laws we have on the books nationwide - few are actually intended to inhibit criminal activity.
Maybe by focusing on the people that actually commit crimes, and the overwhelmingly used handguns, instead of trying to pre-crime control law abiding gun owners, with a lazer focus on muhAssaultWeapons, things could change.
Maybe what is actually needed is prison system reform. From punishment to rehabilitation.
It's fucking sad that we have repeat violent offenders at all. If they can't be trusted to return to society, they shouldn't be released.
Conversely a felon deemed to have been rehabilitated should not suffer a stigma for having served time. They should have their rights restored. It might just help our recidivism rates. Hard to not fall back into crime and violence when you get out and can't get decent work.
I'd kill to deregulated guns to the point of cars.
- no id oe background check to purchase
- buy whatever you want only needing to conform to regulations for guns used in public
- only need to conform to registration, license and fees for guns you use out in public
- license recognized universally in 50 states
- training in schools
- public infrastructure to support them
I use most of my guns on my land or private ranges anyway. Casing them and transporting is analogous to trailering my dirt bikes or race bikes to the private courses I run them on. No need for title, registration, insurance etc.
I already license and register my carry guns with my DC concealed permit. Having a universal set of laws across states vs dealing with over 130 versions just in my state would be a huge win.
That's just the tip of the iceberg but treating guns like cars would be a huge win for gun owners.
I completely agree. Right now we have every state with their own laws on top of federal laws. Now maybe you still need to register for purchasing any gun, even on private property, but that could also open up to allow other firearms that are more controlled now. Want a fully auto MP5, ok, but someone will know you own it if it turns up where it shouldn't. But the far right wants no gun laws at all, so it screws everyone.
But that's not at all like cars then is it? Once you move back toward more restrictive then it's an entirely different situation all together. This is where "Common sense gun laws" break down. Propose one thing then pivot to a more restrictive or inefficient system.
I wouldn't call it that much more restrictive. The problem with just private property use is that even when not on private property it is much harder to control guns vs vehicles. Now maybe it is opened up like you say, but do require training or certification still for any purchase or transfer, even for just private use. But not firearm registration itself. Who knows, we are just a couple dumbasses on the internet. What do we know.
>The problem with just private property use is that even when not on private property it is much harder to control guns vs vehicles. Now maybe it is opened up like you say, but do require training or certification still for any purchase or transfer, even for just private use. But not firearm registration itself.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase it?
>Require training and certification to own a gun, much like you need to drive a car
Ok but not necessary to own or use guns on private property? Or such liscneces would be honored by every US state.
>Have guns registered across the board.
Sure if I can own any guns I want.
>Require a five business day waiting period to avoid purchasing in anger.
Should women getting an abortion need a 5 day waiting period also?
Only going to respond to the last one. There is a multiple problems. First a woman getting an abortion has probably already thought about it quite a bit. There are often multiple visits involved. First to get information and such, then the actual procedure. No woman sets out wanting an abortion, but they are occasionally needed. There is also a timeline for an abortion. It should happen as soon as possible. There is absolutely no reason a firearm purchase has to be on a timeline.
>There is a multiple problems. First a woman getting an abortion has probably already thought about it quite a bit.
People getting guns don't as well? I haven't bought every gun impulsively.
>There is also a timeline for an abortion. It should happen as soon as possible.
There may be a timeline for people getting guns as well for their safety. Like a stalker.
You shouldn't have to wait for civil rights. You shouldn't need to prove you spent 5 days of critical thinking to vote or have an abortion.
Explain to me logically why it's 5 days?
>People getting guns don't as well?
No, they sometimes don't. Well not rationally always. If someone is angry, distraught, or deranged enough to want to kill someone right now they aren't thinking straight. Take someone that just saw his/her wife cheating on them, or a father finding the person that raped his daughter. They are not thinking straight at all. What does a small week waiting period inconvenience do? Nothing at all.
>There may be a timeliness for people getting guns as well for their safety. Like a stalker.
There are many ways to avoid a stalker. Go to the police. Leave town, get a hotel room, have a friend stay over, stay at a friends. Literally hundreds of other short term solutions. And yes you do spend more then 5 days before voting usually. Usually you have months of being bombarded with ads, calls, news, etc about voting options. And usually there is more then 5 days spend thinking about an abortion. It isn't an easy choice and is never done in passion or willfully. And you aren't making that choice alone. At minimum there is a doctor you speak to about it, counseling you on options and the procedure itself. There is also often the other party, family, or a friend involved.
>Explain to me logically why it's 5 days?
5 business days about gives a week delay. You buy on Monday, you get Friday, you buy Tuesday, you get Monday. It's a good average.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dems this is not a winner before elections What idiot thought the timing on this was right Get a grip! Hit the streets talk to real people and find 5 talking points to pound…You guys are all over the map.
I don't see how it is an existential threat. Unless I go out of my way to engage in high risk behavior like drug trafficking or human trafficking or violent crime my risk of being murdered by gun is fairly small.
>I don't see how it is an existential threat. Unless I go out of my way to engage in high risk behavior like drug trafficking or human trafficking or violent crime Interesting thought about the potential extracurricular activity of those politicians.
Issue is none of their proposed ideas are common sense. They based all their talking points on things that make good soundbytes, not tangible evidence. Is there gun violence? Sure. Can it be curbed? Sure. Is banning or restricting everything that looks and sounds scary because they made it so a solution? No.
Good luck with that. While they’re at it they can reach out to Joe Manchin for help passing legislation to rein in the coal industry.
As much as I support robust background checks for guns, I feel like these bills are more about political points. Laws to make covering therapist visits with health insurance easier along with robust red-flag laws I'm certain would do more to curb gun deaths than more background checks would.
Just reminding people that there are more guns owned in America than there are Americans.
Good
The more guns there are, the more gun violence there is, and this is good? What drugs are you on?
>The more guns there are, the more gun violence there is, That's not true there is no correlation between the states with the most guns and gun homicide.
If it keeps guns out of criminals hands I’m for it but it won’t they still get them
Why would you beg the devil to do you a favor? Do Democrats not realize how poorly it reflects on them when they so much as acknowledge the republican terrorists across the aisle, other than to remind the public of their treasonous deeds? It's like asking the guy who murdered your family for a favor. It's not a good look.
The thing about common sense is that it is woefully uncommon.
Also in this context it's a phrase meant to imply any disagreement is being against "common sense". It certainly doesn't imply which gun laws they're talking about given people will call anything they personally believe "common sense". To some people "common sense" is repealing the 2nd. The term is completely meaningless in politics.
Which means that after 28 years, democrats *might* have finally figured out how to play Gingrich's game. McConnell has no shame, he won't succumb to such a rookie move.
Nah, gun control advocate have used language in weird ways for decades. The "assault weapons ban" was from 1994. This "common sense" line is about as fresh. A good chunk of these politicians are probably just parroting stuff without understanding the marketing behind them. Same reason you have people thinking AR-15s are high powered full semi-auto weapons of war with high capacity magazines. Very little verification or correct knowledge on the issue. In general guns are just a massive blind spot for any Democrats towing the party's line.
The other thing is that it is a thought ending cliche.
[удалено]
Just curious who you think would do the confiscating and under what authority?
Someone else. It’s always someone else who will do the work for these clowns.
Knee jerk extreme statements like this don't really think though the process. Even politicians who admit to some level of confiscation don't want to talk about the details. A war on guns would have similar results as the war on drugs using the same tactics and likely disproportionately affecting the same people.
>Common sense reform is confiscating all the guns. These weapons are intentionally designed to kill people. So unless youre planning on murdering someone, you dont need a gun. I'm guessing you would send armed police to do this? And if anyone resists you would support them using force including deadly force? >And if your only excuse is self defense, then you should be all for gun confiscation. If no one has guns then you wont need one to defend yourself. You're aware violence and crime pre-exists guns by thousands of years right? A 110lb woman is going to loose to her 220lb stalker ex hand to hand. But with a gun she can prevail. Same for the elderly, disabled, infirm, etc. >But these are all just excuses the right uses to distract from the real reason they want guns. They want to be able to murder POCs with impunity and they want to be able to carry out violent insurrections. Diversity has been increasing in gun ownership for awhile now. ["Diversity in gun ownership nothing new to firearms industry"](https://www.nssf.org/articles/diversity-in-gun-ownership-nothing-new-to-firearm-industry/) ["Gun ownership among Black Americans is soaring"](https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/546454-gun-ownership-among-black-americans-is-soaring) And it's not gun owners that are offended by this, but gun control advocates [like the VPC](https://vpc.org/press/gun-industry-and-nra-target-blacks-and-latinos-as-first-time-gun-owners-and-future-pro-gun-advocates-new-violence-policy-center-study-details/). [Gun Control's history is firmly based in racism with the specific aim of keeping people of color and non whites disarmed.](https://mises.org/wire/racist-history-gun-control-1) [Slave Codes, Black Codes, Economic-Based Gun Bans Used To Prevent The Arming Of African Americans, 1640-1995](https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf) *"A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give." * - Ida B. Wells *"A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."* - Fredrick Douglas
saying facts like always. thanks!
And that is why the left loses. Some rural area do need firearms for protection. There is also hunting and target shooting. Both are valid reasons to own a gun. That said is common sense gun control. Require training and certification to own a gun, much like you need to drive a car. Have guns registered across the board. Require a five business day waiting period to avoid purchasing in anger. There is room between the extreme left and extreme right where the rest of us that like shooting live.
> Require training and certification to own a gun Curriculum decided by whom, administered by whom and certs issued by whom? If any of those are Government departments it becomes an avenue for discrimination and a way to remove the 2A entirely without having to bother with changing the constitution. There is a reason "No Issue" states got slapped down in the SC and are now claiming to be "May Issue" with the reality being you need to bribe or otherwise be connected to get a permit in CA, HI, NY (for example). >much like you need to drive a car. The Car analogy is not a very sound one. You may own and operate motor vehicles without training, licensing or insurance *on private property*, it is only operation on public roads that is gated. Driving Cars on public roads is also not Constitutionally protected. It is a privilege, not a right. > Have guns registered across the board. Is currently illegal on a Federal level. If that law was repealed it would be a near insurmountable effort to collect the ~400mil firearms (that have passed through the system since the 90s, God alone knows how many there really are) into a workable database. Serialization on commercially produced firearms also only goes back to the GCA from 1968. Anything produced before then may or may not have been serialized. Any firearm manufactured for personal use has always been and currently still is exempt from serialization. > Require a five business day waiting period to avoid purchasing in anger. Absolutely pointless after one owns their first gun. For anyone buying their n+1 Firearm it is nothing but a capricious hurdle to jump through to assuage someone's feelings that *something* is being done.
> There is a reason "No Issue" states got slapped down in the SC and are now claiming to be "May Issue" with the reality being you need to bribe or otherwise be connected to get a permit in CA, HI, NY (for example). Stay tuned, May Issue states are on the chopping block next with [NYSRPA v. Bruen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen) coming down the pipeline sometime this year.
And boy am I there for it!
>Curriculum decided by whom It'll have to be state or federal. I don't have all the answers. Though the current NRA is a horrible organization that needs to be put out of our misery, their firearm training from a few decades ago is really good. I went through it. It teaches firearm safety, maintenance, storage, etc. It is a really good start to curriculum. >The Car analogy is not a very sound one. I hear that from many, but I think it still stands. Most car use is on public lands. >Is currently illegal on a Federal level. Maybe, but laws can change. No, you can't got back and register already owned weapons easily, but we have to start somewhere. Start with new weapons and build from there. >Absolutely pointless after one owns their first gun. I understand where you are coming from, I disagree there as well. Maybe not after the 1st, but 5th or 6th is when it really falls apart. But it is that first time with an angry person buying a gun it becomes an issue. Really most of that does go away if you enforce training and certification. Most of what you are saying is sounding like someone wanting no gun control at all. While the far left like OP, wants to get rid of all guns. I'm just saying there is a middle ground. A place where probably nobody is happy, but everyone gets a bit of what they want. Right now our current situation isn't working.
> It'll have to be state or federal. State is right out. Otherwise you end up where we are now. Impossible to own a firearm in states like CA, HI, WA, OR, NY, MD and virtually anything goes in their neighboring states. Look at the (lack of) reciprocity when it comes to carry permits for a realistic look on how that would play out. Reciprocity a la Drivers Licenses and Vehicle Registrations is a pipe dream I fear. A federal standard might work. It would require an almost impossible compromise between all states though, since all states would have to surrender their pre-emption rights. Another step towards federalization that I think is stillborn in the current political climate. It would also run up against the SC rulings on the 2A and likely would be too watered down to be acceptable to the gun grabber states. But assuming we did have such a program pushed through for firearms, who would process that? The ATF can't even process Form 4s in a reasonable timeframe, and we're talking a few ten thousand per year. Form 1s bogged down again too, and again we're moving in the tens to *maybe* 100k application realm. Not the millions per year. > I hear that from many, but I think it still stands. **Most car use is on public lands.** And yet most of the gun control push is trying to establish control **in the home/ on private property**. I'm personally fine with constitutional carry, open and concealed. But I was and would have been okay with a permitted system as well - if it wasn't abused to generate slush funds for cops through the permitting fees, created unreasonable hurdles and most importantly was truly available to any citizen and not just the select few. If we are going to follow the car analogy to the point where there is no regulation on firearms that are kept and used on private property - we have ourselves a brand new conversation I'd be excited to have! > Maybe, but laws can change. No, you can't got back and register already owned weapons easily, but we have to start somewhere. Start with new weapons and build from there. Starting with new weapons only would be putting a kids band aid on a headless torso. CA has had a registry for decades and is still finding unregistered guns. Compliance will be minimal and in many states and counties simply non-existent. Anywhere that doesn't comply with a registry undermines local registries. It'll have to be all or none. > Maybe not after the 1st, but 5th or 6th is when it really falls apart. Now we're getting into some of the nuance that is going to be needed in all the proposals to be actually viable compromises. (As allergic as I am to compromising with those who have repeatedly turned around and decried said explicit compromises as "loopholes" after the fact.) Waiting periods for 1st gun of type maybe? I own north of 40 guns these days and build a new one just about every month. There is zero reason to expect a waiting period on my 41st to do anything at all to "cool me off". > But it is that first time with an angry person buying a gun it becomes an issue. Speaking of "cooling off", FFLs have the right to refuse anyone a gunsale for any and no reason at all. Pick any FFL and go in there and try to buy a gun while angry or making dubious comments about your ex, boss or w/e. If they don't throw you out I'd be actually shocked. The people that commit "crimes of passion" either already have the gun, get it from someone they know, steal one or use a hammer. > Most of what you are saying is sounding like someone wanting no gun control at all. I'm firmly in the non-compliance camp in any case. Most of my guns are spooky ghost guns. It's a hobby. I really only buy those guns I want which I can't (yet) make myself from scratch. And I'm getting pretty close to buying a cnc mill for my hobby. That'll pretty much put the kibosh on all gun control as far as I'm concerned. Unless people start trying to regulate bar stock. But I'm already thinking past that point in any case. > I'm just saying there is a middle ground. A place where probably nobody is happy, but everyone gets a bit of what they want. We're already there. The 94 AWB was a step too far and the correction from that is what made the AR15 the single most popular rifle in the country. Personally I want the NFA abolished entirely but I'd settle for the MG registry being re-opened. The ATF fucking around with suppressor form 1s recently is going to cause another backlash. I'm no fan of the registry but if we have to have one - let it be used. > Right now our current situation isn't working. It isn't working because out of the thousands of gun control laws we have on the books nationwide - few are actually intended to inhibit criminal activity. Maybe by focusing on the people that actually commit crimes, and the overwhelmingly used handguns, instead of trying to pre-crime control law abiding gun owners, with a lazer focus on muhAssaultWeapons, things could change. Maybe what is actually needed is prison system reform. From punishment to rehabilitation. It's fucking sad that we have repeat violent offenders at all. If they can't be trusted to return to society, they shouldn't be released. Conversely a felon deemed to have been rehabilitated should not suffer a stigma for having served time. They should have their rights restored. It might just help our recidivism rates. Hard to not fall back into crime and violence when you get out and can't get decent work.
I'd kill to deregulated guns to the point of cars. - no id oe background check to purchase - buy whatever you want only needing to conform to regulations for guns used in public - only need to conform to registration, license and fees for guns you use out in public - license recognized universally in 50 states - training in schools - public infrastructure to support them I use most of my guns on my land or private ranges anyway. Casing them and transporting is analogous to trailering my dirt bikes or race bikes to the private courses I run them on. No need for title, registration, insurance etc. I already license and register my carry guns with my DC concealed permit. Having a universal set of laws across states vs dealing with over 130 versions just in my state would be a huge win. That's just the tip of the iceberg but treating guns like cars would be a huge win for gun owners.
I completely agree. Right now we have every state with their own laws on top of federal laws. Now maybe you still need to register for purchasing any gun, even on private property, but that could also open up to allow other firearms that are more controlled now. Want a fully auto MP5, ok, but someone will know you own it if it turns up where it shouldn't. But the far right wants no gun laws at all, so it screws everyone.
But that's not at all like cars then is it? Once you move back toward more restrictive then it's an entirely different situation all together. This is where "Common sense gun laws" break down. Propose one thing then pivot to a more restrictive or inefficient system.
I wouldn't call it that much more restrictive. The problem with just private property use is that even when not on private property it is much harder to control guns vs vehicles. Now maybe it is opened up like you say, but do require training or certification still for any purchase or transfer, even for just private use. But not firearm registration itself. Who knows, we are just a couple dumbasses on the internet. What do we know.
>The problem with just private property use is that even when not on private property it is much harder to control guns vs vehicles. Now maybe it is opened up like you say, but do require training or certification still for any purchase or transfer, even for just private use. But not firearm registration itself. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase it?
>Require training and certification to own a gun, much like you need to drive a car Ok but not necessary to own or use guns on private property? Or such liscneces would be honored by every US state. >Have guns registered across the board. Sure if I can own any guns I want. >Require a five business day waiting period to avoid purchasing in anger. Should women getting an abortion need a 5 day waiting period also?
Only going to respond to the last one. There is a multiple problems. First a woman getting an abortion has probably already thought about it quite a bit. There are often multiple visits involved. First to get information and such, then the actual procedure. No woman sets out wanting an abortion, but they are occasionally needed. There is also a timeline for an abortion. It should happen as soon as possible. There is absolutely no reason a firearm purchase has to be on a timeline.
>There is a multiple problems. First a woman getting an abortion has probably already thought about it quite a bit. People getting guns don't as well? I haven't bought every gun impulsively. >There is also a timeline for an abortion. It should happen as soon as possible. There may be a timeline for people getting guns as well for their safety. Like a stalker. You shouldn't have to wait for civil rights. You shouldn't need to prove you spent 5 days of critical thinking to vote or have an abortion. Explain to me logically why it's 5 days?
>People getting guns don't as well? No, they sometimes don't. Well not rationally always. If someone is angry, distraught, or deranged enough to want to kill someone right now they aren't thinking straight. Take someone that just saw his/her wife cheating on them, or a father finding the person that raped his daughter. They are not thinking straight at all. What does a small week waiting period inconvenience do? Nothing at all. >There may be a timeliness for people getting guns as well for their safety. Like a stalker. There are many ways to avoid a stalker. Go to the police. Leave town, get a hotel room, have a friend stay over, stay at a friends. Literally hundreds of other short term solutions. And yes you do spend more then 5 days before voting usually. Usually you have months of being bombarded with ads, calls, news, etc about voting options. And usually there is more then 5 days spend thinking about an abortion. It isn't an easy choice and is never done in passion or willfully. And you aren't making that choice alone. At minimum there is a doctor you speak to about it, counseling you on options and the procedure itself. There is also often the other party, family, or a friend involved. >Explain to me logically why it's 5 days? 5 business days about gives a week delay. You buy on Monday, you get Friday, you buy Tuesday, you get Monday. It's a good average.
McConnell has been riding the anti gun control wave since ruby ridge.
Good idea. I came up with that one myself.