Current Events > Would you accept this Gun Rights / Gun Control political compromise?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The proposal:

- Gun ownership now requires a gun license, getting the gun license is like getting a driver's license, you have to take a test to prove your competency + knowledge of the laws and pass a background check. The license is presented when you are purchasing guns, and the guns will be registered with their owner.

- The National Firearms Act is amended to ensure that civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons, short barreled or "sawed-off" rifles and shotguns, silencers/suppressors, and various types of ammunition (armor piercing, hollow point, etc.) are protected.

- A federal concealed carry license is created that has jurisdiction throughout the entire US, overriding any state or local laws attempting to prohibit concealed carry.
---

Only the first part works, the second and third are backwards and totally ignore that certain states have laws regarding that stuff in place because it deters issues. Like NYC having such strict laws on the books.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Only the first part works, the second and third are backwards and totally ignore that certain states have laws regarding that stuff in place because it deters issues. Like NYC having such strict laws on the books.

NYC is an example of a city that has restricted the Second Amendment far, far too excessively. New York State as a whole has done this, actually. They could use some of these proposals.

Also, if it's just more gun control and no concessions given to gun rights advocates, then it's not a compromise.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Only the first part works, the second and third are backwards and totally ignore that certain states have laws regarding that stuff in place because it deters issues. Like NYC having such strict laws on the books.

NYC is an example of a city that has restricted the Second Amendment far, far too excessively. New York State as a whole has done this, actually. They could use some of these proposals.

Also, if it's just more gun control and no concessions given to gun rights advocates, then it's not a compromise.

What laws or requirements causes gun control to be too excessive? What's an example of a state and it's laws that causes gun control to be too lax?
---

Only good idea is the first one.
---

3rd_Best_Master posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Only the first part works, the second and third are backwards and totally ignore that certain states have laws regarding that stuff in place because it deters issues. Like NYC having such strict laws on the books.

NYC is an example of a city that has restricted the Second Amendment far, far too excessively. New York State as a whole has done this, actually. They could use some of these proposals.

Also, if it's just more gun control and no concessions given to gun rights advocates, then it's not a compromise.

What laws or requirements causes gun control to be too excessive? What's an example of a state and it's laws that causes gun control to be too lax?

In the US, no state has gun control that is too lax. However, I would admit that I would prefer for people to have better training because there are some dumbasses out there.

As for New York, here are some of the ridiculous gun control laws I am talking about:

- 10 round magazine maximum (was originally 7 but that was struck down for being BS)

- Ban on semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic pistols (handguns), and semi-automatic shotguns with one or more "military-style features, such as a telescoping stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, grenade launcher, threaded barrel, muzzle compensator; thumbhole stock, or foregrip.

- Making it extremely difficult to get concealed carry in NYC if you aren't rich or connected

- Also lots of political BS like this:

The state of New York is of particular concern to interstate motorists who travel with firearms because it separates all six New England states from the rest of the United States. This means that under the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), all people traveling through the state with firearms are protected by federal law, however they must have their firearms unloaded and locked in a hard case where they are not readily accessible (e.g. in the trunk of a vehicle).[36]

Even with federal protections for those who properly secure their firearms and ammunition while transiting through New York, some police agencies in New York (notably the New York State Police and the New York Police Department) do not recognize the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act, and may still detain or arrest travelers, and place such travelers in a situation where they have to reference FOPA as an affirmative defense to criminal charges in court proceedings.


---

No, registration is the first step to confiscation.
---

people drive without a driver's license
---

545x39 posted...

No, registration is the first step to confiscation.

There would have to be a lot of protections built into the law.

And confiscation is sadly already thing, look what happened in NY state after the NY SAFE Act
---

545x39 posted...

No, registration is the first step to confiscation.

Yes just look at all those European countries confiscating weapons from registered gun owners

Imagine crafting your entire personality around and living your whole life around guns. What a sad fucking existence.
---

Would not accept this as there are very few states that would allow or even accept the idea of part 2 and 3 of this.
---

GregShmedley posted...

RebelElite791 posted...

545x39 posted...

No, registration is the first step to confiscation.

Yes just look at all those European countries confiscating weapons from registered gun owners

Imagine crafting your entire personality around and living your whole life around guns. What a sad fucking existence.

This is amazing coming from you of all people.

I'm sorry who are you again
---

No. Stop restricting my fucking rights.
---

You already have to have a license though.

545x39 posted...

No, registration is the first step to confiscation.

remember the time the government confiscated everyone's cars

Pepperidge Farm remembers
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

3rd_Best_Master posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Only the first part works, the second and third are backwards and totally ignore that certain states have laws regarding that stuff in place because it deters issues. Like NYC having such strict laws on the books.

NYC is an example of a city that has restricted the Second Amendment far, far too excessively. New York State as a whole has done this, actually. They could use some of these proposals.

Also, if it's just more gun control and no concessions given to gun rights advocates, then it's not a compromise.

What laws or requirements causes gun control to be too excessive? What's an example of a state and it's laws that causes gun control to be too lax?

In the US, no state has gun control that is too lax. However, I would admit that I would prefer for people to have better training because there are some dumbasses out there.

As for New York, here are some of the ridiculous gun control laws I am talking about:

- 10 round magazine maximum (was originally 7 but that was struck down for being BS)

- Ban on semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic pistols (handguns), and semi-automatic shotguns with one or more "military-style features, such as a telescoping stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, grenade launcher, threaded barrel, muzzle compensator; thumbhole stock, or foregrip.

- Making it extremely difficult to get concealed carry in NYC if you aren't rich or connected

- Also lots of political BS like this:

The state of New York is of particular concern to interstate motorists who travel with firearms because it separates all six New England states from the rest of the United States. This means that under the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), all people traveling through the state with firearms are protected by federal law, however they must have their firearms unloaded and locked in a hard case where they are not readily accessible (e.g. in the trunk of a vehicle).[36]

Even with federal protections for those who properly secure their firearms and ammunition while transiting through New York, some police agencies in New York (notably the New York State Police and the New York Police Department) do not recognize the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act, and may still detain or arrest travelers, and place such travelers in a situation where they have to reference FOPA as an affirmative defense to criminal charges in court proceedings.

New York City banned duracoat because the mayor claimed it would be used by criminals to trick cops into thinking the guns were just toys. No actual evidence to suggest such a thing had happened and there were only two shipments to the city, one being the Mayor's office.
---

After constantly seeing the crazy people on the road each day, and knowing that most of them do have driver's licenses, it would not stop crazy people getting and using guns stupidly. With that said, I'm also for making the requirements for getting a keeping driver's licenses harder than it is now.
---

I'd be ok with this.
It's not even close to good enough but it's more than what's currently in play so I'll take incremental enforcement over the current state of things.
---

Offworlder1 posted...

Would not accept this as there are very few states that would allow or even accept the idea of part 2 and 3 of this.

Well if it got through Congress, they would have no choice
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

- Gun ownership now requires a gun license, getting the gun license is like getting a driver's license, you have to take a test to prove your competency + knowledge of the laws and pass a background check. The license is presented when you are purchasing guns, and the guns will be registered with their owner.

More or less my position on this already.

Also parts 2 and 3 are a pretty gross violation of state rights
---

I agree with it in theory, but not in practice. They're just going to make it way too expensive/impossible to own a Gun Licenese in order to make sure poor people can't own firearms.

In fact, you can already own suppressors and short barreled weapons if you pay enough money anyways.
---

How about we don't restrict our constitutional freedoms?
---

Swagnificent119 posted...

I agree with it in theory, but not in practice. They're just going to make it way too expensive/impossible to own a Gun Licenese in order to make sure poor people can't own firearms.

How much do you pay for a driver's license?
---

Doom_Art posted...

How much do you pay for a driver's license?

You ask this as if there isn't already a high cost and time wait in order to get the tax stamps in order to own Short Barreled Rifles or Suppressors.

Why would it become any different the second we try to license gun ownership in general?
---

You're pretty much asking everyone to make owning a gun much more difficult for absolutely no gain outside of "lol now you can own automatic weapons."

The idea of a conceal carry that works nation wide doesn't matter the second every liberal utopia decides to just make it so you can't carry in any business.

So, yeah, no thanks.
---

Swagnificent119 posted...

You ask this as if there isn't already a high cost and time wait in order to get the tax stamps in order to own Short Barreled Rifles or Suppressors.

You didn't answer my question

Swagnificent119 posted...

Why would it become any different the second we try to license gun ownership in general?

It's not about keeping the amount of people down. It's about education.
---

Doom_Art posted...

You didn't answer my question

Because it's an absolutely pointless question to bring up since not all licensing costs the same. How much does a liquor license cost? How much does a pilot license cost?

For the record, 30 dollars is what it costs for me to renew my drivers license.

Doom_Art posted...

It's not about keeping the amount of people down. It's about education.

You're going to have to try harder than that, Doom_Art. Everyone knows you and your kind are always trying to find a way to keep the guns restricted and this would just turn into another bullshit ban
---

Anything that doesn't make semi automatics available for children to buy at Walmart is going to be condemned by the right.

The perfect example of how this will be abused is to look at how Illinois handles it's FOID and Conceal Carry permits.
---

First one is a great idea. Second and third are terrible ideas.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mi-LXipDo8

but yeah, it's totally all about education and not keeping guns away from the people.
---

No, I would not accept it for the reasons already given in that it is too likely to be abused without any sort of gain for me. I have no reason to own automatic weapons, short barreled weapons or suppressors. (well, maybe suppressors but I'd rather just my neighbors deal with the noise than deal with licensing)

I would rather just leave it up to states to decide license and laws surrounding firearms.
---

I think regulations would need to more strongly address the fact that so many guns leak to the black market. How are you planning to store the guns? Who can sell them? Regular check ups, etc.
---

You need a Doctor prescription for certain drugs that people buy off the streets
---

Swagnificent119 posted...

You're going to have to try harder than that, Doom_Art. Everyone knows you and your kind are always trying to find a way to keep the guns restricted and this would just turn into another bullshit ban

Much as how cars are restricted
---

Doom_Art posted...

Also parts 2 and 3 are a pretty gross violation of state rights

Nope, the Constitution puts limits on states' rights.
---

Doom_Art posted...

Swagnificent119 posted...

You're going to have to try harder than that, Doom_Art. Everyone knows you and your kind are always trying to find a way to keep the guns restricted and this would just turn into another bullshit ban

Much as how cars are restricted

Last I checked, operating a motor vehicle on public roadways was a privilege, not a right.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Last I checked, operating a motor vehicle on public roadways was a privilege, not a right.

The point is that even though cars are regulated, there's no indication of the government trying to take them away. So why would they with guns?
---

Doom_Art posted...

Swagnificent119 posted...

I agree with it in theory, but not in practice. They're just going to make it way too expensive/impossible to own a Gun Licenese in order to make sure poor people can't own firearms.

How much do you pay for a driver's license?

Roughly $10.

The $10 argument is frequently used by the left as some sort of barrier to voting, and being racist.

If that argument is to believed, then it also means disarmament of the poor and by extension black communities.

Are you in favor of disarming black people?
---

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Last I checked, operating a motor vehicle on public roadways was a privilege, not a right.

The point is that even though cars are regulated, there's no indication of the government trying to take them away. So why would they with guns?

Because they've been trying to do so for a long time.

You do know that, until DC versus Heller, a lot of cities such as DC, Chicago, New York, and LA all had blanket bans on certain firearms, right? And that the last Dem Presidential candidate said the Supreme Court 'got it wrong' on that decision? And that she wants to institute Australia's gun control here - a de-facto gun ban?
---

scar the 1 posted...

The point is that even though cars are regulated, there's no indication of the government trying to take them away. So why would they with guns?

Probably because every time they've tried to pass "common sense gun control" they've tried to do it through the most backhanded and shitty way possible.

Remember, these are people that routinely try to get guns with detachable magazines, pistol grips, and just being colored black banned. And usually it's through underhanded tactics.
---