I’m good with all of it. I get a bit hesitant with the red flag laws, but if they’re treated like a psych hold where you need a good bit of proof and a court order, then yeah I’m all for it as well.
I'm personally good with the Massachusetts standard going nationwide. Maybe remove the 10-round mag limit, it's such a pain in the ass having to reload so often. And naturally the May Issue...issue would need sorting out constitutionally. Or just replacement with stringent Red Flag laws.
The requirements to get a permit here in MA are reasonable; the process of getting it approved after meeting those requirements are not. The baseline only works is if a "shall issue" policy is enacted once the other requirements are met. Arbitrary decision-making by law enforcement on who gets a gun and who does not is ripe for abuse, like it is already.
They're trying to pass a law outlawing allowing children at drag shows. I say let it pass and then start arresting priests. You're telling me that a grown man who doesn't have sex with women, wearing a dress, performing theatrically, and drinking wine at 10 AM on a Sunday isn't a drag show? Sure buddy, sure.
But hey, taking your adolescent kids to places like Hooters, Twin Peaks, Tilted Kilt, etc. are perfectly fine because... reasons?
Because those fake tits are bolted onto women whereas the drag shows have fake tits bolted onto dudes.
You've clearly not been to a drag show any time lately. Those aren't fake, those guys are just REALLY GOOD at contouring their makeup.
Texas Dipshits: We can't have anything LBGTQ in schools! Parents should decide that! Parents: Well, okay. Texas Dipshits: NOT LIKE THAT! In all seriousness, it's scary how fast these people are moving. The aforementioned dipshits have already succeeded in changing Texas state policy in regard to school libraries. I'm more or less certain I'm going to be caught up in a book banin August because of it. The worst is definitely yet to come.
Let’s just add in that same cross-dressing virgin gets to hold sway over every member of his church’s sex life. And as far as arresting priests go, there’s about three thousand or so that should have been arrested and haven’t been yet. Because their church and Catholic schools are a child sex racket.
The most remarkable thing is that if I want to make changes to my health insurance, I have to wait until open season, but I can buy a gun at any given moment and ahem, increase your deductible. The absurdities in this system are beginning to fuck with me. I do think a few Republicans are starting to worry that if they aren't part of a solution now, while there's some degree of political air coverage, they will be forced to futilely oppose something worse, and the bet that a SC ruling will make whatever gun control measure unconstitutional is less and less safe. McConnell is the one to watch, as obstructionist in chief. Abbott is doomed as far as the party is concerned, and so are folks like Susan Collins and....Steve Scalise's whole back story is more fucking retarded than "Suicide Squad", so I can't imagine someone being a victim of a mass shooter opposing gun control legislation to represent where the public stands on the issue for much longer. https://www.politico.com/video/2022...ims-stories-in-emotional-speech-at-w-h-601098 Dude is seizing the moment, and I think the strategy is he (for some reason) will be taken more seriously than the David Hogg's of this tragedy, and his input deflects from the shit show of an investigation into the police inaction. He gets some political exposure and an ability to test the political waters, the administration gets a Texan palatable to the rest of the country as a spokesman, and we avoid incoherent weeping parents/children on tv. I'm with Gravy, though. The recent success of the religious right in dismantling some of the fundamentals is alarming, and with the SC packed with like-minded cunts, this can and will continue. My biggest gripe with all the liberal friends (and SJW twats) is since Occupy Wall Street, everything we've complained about has gotten worse, from wages to MeToo, and everything the conservative Christians have hawked about has seen major leaps forward, from anti-abortion, to union-busting, to anti-LGBT legislation. It's very worrying, considering that reflects an increasingly diminishing minority.
Ideas that seem like common sense and laws that are effective are, unfortunately, often not the same thing. Universal background checks cannot be enforced without universal registration. If the government doesn't know where every gun is, how will they ensure that a background check occurs before a sale between two individuals? The reason background checks can occur for new firearms is because the manufacturers and dealers are required to track each weapon up until the initial sale. Registration is highly unlikely to pass because almost every instance of a government implementing registration has led to that same government using the registry to later confiscate some or all of the weapons. The NRA has vigorously opposed any type of registration proposal for this reason. I would not register my existing firearms for fear that a government entity would eventually decide that those weapons are no longer legal. I will also never use one of my firearms in a mass shooting. McConaughey's mention of Dylann Roof is a non sequitur; it has nothing to do with universal background checks. The background check through the dealer and existing regulations failed to prevent his purchase even though he should have been deemed ineligible. We've covered the misuse of the term "assault rifle" here numerous times. If we move toward regulating AR-style weapons, the most ineffective approach would be to let Congress decide which weapons to ban or restrict based on how scary they look. This is exactly what happened in the 1994 ban which had no effect on crime. If we're going to pass laws that will restrict citizens from a currently legal activity, the laws should be effective and bring about a measurable decrease in criminal activity.
Why does a gun registration have to be tied to a specific gun? I've always thought that you would treat it like a drivers license. You go through your background check and whatever other requirements are deemed appropriate and get a registration for gun ownership. You can then go and purchase whatever gun you want. Make it an easily accessible online database and private sellers can verify that the person they are selling to also meets the requirements for gun ownership. If it's proven you sold a gun to someone without checking the database then there should be legal repercussions. I feel like gun owners often look to poke holes in any solution to deal with this problem, and then use that as a reason why we can't have any restrictions. You own something that was created for the purpose of killing and injuring things. You should have to jump through some hoops to prove that you can handle that responsibility. We're getting to the point where the rest of the citizenry does want to remove all guns from circulation, and if gun advocates don't start being proactive in coming up with solutions then that is what will happen. Even if that's 25-50 years down the road.
A lot of us already have that. I have a carry permit, was fingerprinted, had a background check, and have government issued ID for it. It doesn't matter to me. But, advocates might tell you that driving a car is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution, but that owning a gun is, and therefore shouldn't require registration. I agree with you on that final point, though. If the advocates don't proactively come with solutions of compromise, something will be done. Maybe MacConaughey and others saying reasonable stuff will help move that forward.
This could be a positive though. Have a national standard for concealed carry permits, so all legal gun owners have done the same training, fingerprinting, background check, and ID. This would probably increase the number of people who would carry firearms, i.e. “good guys with guns.”
Maybe, just require this for ownership of EVERY gun, not just concealed carry. Not sure why we treat pistols, shotguns, rifles, etc differently. At the very least, you should need a permit and be vetted across the board. This also needs to be done at the federal level and not leave it up to the states. Constitution doesn't say anything about each state having it's own way of doing things in regards to owning weapons. If it's in the constitution and you are going to hold that standard, it's a federal issue and should be taken care of at that level.
Because that's the only way to determine if a transaction occurred. If I have a pistol and sell it to another guy, what mechanism forces me to ensure that he has passed a background check? If anyone asks, the sale happened before the law went into effect. We have to capture the current status of all gun ownership in order to determine whether any sales have occurred. Otherwise, the requirement for backgrounds checks on private sales has no effect. Careful - the current Supreme Court has a habit of striking down state and local gun laws. If we implement a national strategy it will likely get looser in more controlled states, not tighter in the lax states.
That's what police investigations are for. I'm sure a system could be set up to provide verification of a background check. If the police determine you sold someone a gun and they later used it in a crime it would show you followed the law. After some period of time the "sold it before the law went into effect" excuse will not very believable. Again, your poking holes without providing alternatives. This is a pretty minimal restriction I'm suggesting, and it leaves it up to gun owners to follow the requirement. I.e. be a responsible gun owner. If you're not willing to accept any restrictions for gun ownership then just say that.
Just a regular carry permit? Okay, still the same thing. If there’s a federal carry permit, then more people would probably carry in their everyday lives. Unless you just mean a “federal I own a gun card?” I don’t feel the need to do that if my gun is at home or being used in a range, and nowhere else - especially not in mass shootings.
Without knowing who has what guns, how will the police investigate an illegal sale? Without automobile registrations, how do the police determine who owns a vehicle? It's not on the honor system, and guns sales will never be either. All I'm saying is that if you implement background checks on private sales, you must also capture who owns what guns. This is already done by the manufacturers when they issue serial numbers and gun dealers when they receive them and then sell them to a private citizen. After that, the tracking is lost. My point is that it's not as simple as "pass a law to require universal background checks." This is the point that gun control proponents always miss - it's never that simple. The same situation happened with the 1994 AWB. Congress dictated what constituted an assault weapon and patted themselves on the back for the great reductions in crime coming, then manufacturers and gun owners made slight modifications to get around the ban. The law was ineffective - not just because of that, but also because it didn't address weapons that are actually used in the majority of crimes. Yes, some people will get caught by sting operations when they sell a weapon to an undercover cop without requiring a background check but the vast majority of unchecked transfers will not be stopped without a registration requirement.