What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

So a way to not have to take back all x number of guns is to simply change the ownership laws which is infinitely easier than the former.

Instead of making it so easy, simply make it harder aka stricter guidelines in order to own AR15 for example.

Make it so there's a wait time, demonstrated experience with use, etc. a lot of countries have these kind of rules like Japan and the Swiss.

The idea is that you make it harder for psychos who are seeking to use it ASAP and the mentally ill who are interested in using it however they want. That's it. You aren't going to win the fight of convincing 100% to give up firearms but you can strategize and leverage the opportunities to minimize mass shootings by doing some things differently than current.

The biggest issue is states have different laws so you'd need to regulate federally and have it be the same process nation wide. Politically it's harder but not sure why any state would want to pass up making it harder to have public carnage? You wanna carry? Fine. But you should be able to prove your ability with hours of training and you shouldn't be able to get AR weapon in a few hours to use.

It's not 100% but it's at least better than what we have now.

[Anonymous]

^ I'd add - take the background ck or revise it as it doesn't seem to work. Instead, just make everyone who buys a gun require x hrs of training. 80% of anyone seeking to buy would not want to buy anymore just based on that requirement. The truly avid gun owners who are likely responsible should not have a prob. You need to prove you are responsible before having the freedom of owning a weapon.

Why is this unreasonable?

[Anonymous]

I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ I'd add - take the background ck or revise it as it doesn't seem to work. Instead, just make everyone who buys a gun require x hrs of training. 80% of anyone seeking to buy would not want to buy anymore just based on that requirement. The truly avid gun owners who are likely responsible should not have a prob. You need to prove you are responsible before having the freedom of owning a weapon.

Why is this unreasonable?

Is there a responsibility hurdle to exercise the 1st Amendment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ I'd add - take the background ck or revise it as it doesn't seem to work. Instead, just make everyone who buys a gun require x hrs of training. 80% of anyone seeking to buy would not want to buy anymore just based on that requirement. The truly avid gun owners who are likely responsible should not have a prob. You need to prove you are responsible before having the freedom of owning a weapon.

Why is this unreasonable?

Now apply this to other rights. I think you'll find it's quite unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

Other rights have restrictions. The first amendment does not give me the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building. Amendment rights are limited in cases to ensure the safety of the greater population.

By that justification, you can argue that requiring background checks and weapons training will ensure the guns are to ensure the community is safe. The same with proper gun storage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other rights have restrictions. The first amendment does not give me the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building. Amendment rights are limited in cases to ensure the safety of the greater population.

By that justification, you can argue that requiring background checks and weapons training will ensure the guns are to ensure the community is safe. The same with proper gun storage.

So are you ok with poll taxes? Because that's what you are instituting for the Second Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other rights have restrictions. The first amendment does not give me the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building. Amendment rights are limited in cases to ensure the safety of the greater population.

By that justification, you can argue that requiring background checks and weapons training will ensure the guns are to ensure the community is safe. The same with proper gun storage.

So are you ok with poll taxes? Because that's what you are instituting for the Second Amendment.

Do you think the Second Amendment should be a free-for-all? That literally every weapon that humans are capable of manufacturing are fair game for ownership?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other rights have restrictions. The first amendment does not give me the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building. Amendment rights are limited in cases to ensure the safety of the greater population.

Again, this example hinges on after the fact enforcement. No one removed the word “fire” from our vocabulary, or created tests to allow the use of the word fire”fire”.

This is the worst, but most frequently cited example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other rights have restrictions. The first amendment does not give me the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building. Amendment rights are limited in cases to ensure the safety of the greater population.

By that justification, you can argue that requiring background checks and weapons training will ensure the guns are to ensure the community is safe. The same with proper gun storage.

Oddly, it’s legal to own a tank.

So are you ok with poll taxes? Because that's what you are instituting for the Second Amendment.

Do you think the Second Amendment should be a free-for-all? That literally every weapon that humans are capable of manufacturing are fair game for ownership?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the Second Amendment should be a free-for-all? That literally every weapon that humans are capable of manufacturing are fair game for ownership?

Oddly, it’s legal to own a tank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

Thanks! Million’s of people can’t wait. I’ll let you break it to CA, NJ, NY and CT. NYC will be particularly pissed at you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So a way to not have to take back all x number of guns is to simply change the ownership laws which is infinitely easier than the former.

Instead of making it so easy, simply make it harder aka stricter guidelines in order to own AR15 for example.

Make it so there's a wait time, demonstrated experience with use, etc. a lot of countries have these kind of rules like Japan and the Swiss.

The idea is that you make it harder for psychos who are seeking to use it ASAP and the mentally ill who are interested in using it however they want. That's it. You aren't going to win the fight of convincing 100% to give up firearms but you can strategize and leverage the opportunities to minimize mass shootings by doing some things differently than current.

The biggest issue is states have different laws so you'd need to regulate federally and have it be the same process nation wide. Politically it's harder but not sure why any state would want to pass up making it harder to have public carnage? You wanna carry? Fine. But you should be able to prove your ability with hours of training and you shouldn't be able to get AR weapon in a few hours to use.

It's not 100% but it's at least better than what we have now.

Fine. Now apply it for voting and posting on the internet. If it still makes and seems fine, I’ll support you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

Which countries?