That would require a constitutional amendment because what you are describing would infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms and that's explicitly unconstitutional. There's absolutely no chance that type of constitutional amendment happens any time in the foreseeable future.
no thanks on the permit BS. not sure why you think supply is "massively higher than demand" this isn't produce getting thrown out at a Trader Jose's
Permits are going to happen. Shotguns, bolt action and low caliber weapons may not be included so it can be 'constitutional', but its coming. Or more and more states will start cracking down. I would rather permits than pointless measures like semi-automatic bans. I dont understand the passive approach by the 'no restrictions' pro-gun crowd. You guys call the federal government incompetent but you insist they are responsible for keeping guns out of the wrong hands. I used to be very pro-gun, however though the years I realized many of the people I come across have no business owning guns. Just because we have a constitutional right to own a gun does not mean we have a right to own it in an incompetent manner.
So you are basically talking about "permits" for fully automatic weapons then? They already have them. There's no way they'd get away with expanding that to all semi-automatic weapons or even all semi-automatic rifles though....you know, because the constitution is still a thing. I'm not sure what you mean by "you insist they (federal government) are responsible for keeping guns out of the wrong hands", I've never suggested that at all. I think many people have no business being allowed to vote, but I'd never support stripping the people of their civil liberties even if I think a lot of people make a mockery of their rights. I guess that's just where we differ on the subject. Now that said, if you want to pass laws going after gun owners who fail to take reasonable precautions with their weapons and let them fall into the hands of those who would misuse them, I'm all for that. Punishing criminal negligence is one thing, calling for the further erosion of the 2nd amendment is another thing.
Compromises have been made for the last 50+ years and they keep asking for more. A former supreme court justice and many op-eds called for repealing the second amendment. They aren't looking for middle ground they are looking to move slowly to outright ban which i feel is a very bad thing.
Very few countries have outright bans. Most countries have a permitting system, some more strict than others. Out of the developed countries, the US is one of the very few, if not the only, that lets anyone posses a gun provided they are not on some restrictive list. I dont agree with this philosophy anymore. We shouldn't let incompetent or disturbed people walk into their local pawn shop and purchase a weapon because they dont show up on some type of restrictive list. A person should be able to demonstrate their knowledge of laws, gun safety and responsibility. Is that really too much to ask?
How many countries have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that the government won't infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Those are the ONLY countries you should be looking at because that's the relevant sample. It's not really relevant if you agree or disagree with the civil rights that Americans have, if anything those who oppose civil rights are the reason they exist in the first place.
How does demonstrating knowledge of gun laws, competency and responsibility infringe on anyones right to own a gun? Unless you think incompetent and irresponsible people should own guns.
Would you be preventing them from owning a gun if they failed to demonstrate that knowledge? If so, that's you infringing upon their right to do so. I don't like incompetent or irresponsible people owning guns, but it's their right to do so....you know, just like I don't like incompetent and irresponsible people voting. Just because you don't like that some people have civil rights doesn't mean you should be allowed to strip them of their rights. I mean, that's the whole point.
Do you think the mentally ill or felons should be allowed to own guns? How about people awaiting trial? Do you think we should be allowed to own aircraft carriers and stealth bombers? How about nuclear submarines?
Again ... guns need to be treated the way we treat cars in this country and car safety is largely regulated by corporate America the way you free market so-called capitalists should want (but your not really capitalists ... you’ll go along with anything Trump says when he turns a 180 to capitalism). -Compency test with certified expert -liability insurance required -identification number tracked through registry Let the insurance companies who will be paying out premiums after a mass shooting to the victims be the ones who regulate the industry. You don’t trust the government ... DONT. Let the insurance market decide. It’s that simple and every free market capitalist should jump at this... but we all know most of you Trump fans are full of it and want nothing to do with that. You’re more than happy to do the bidding of the gun lobby for them without asking a question. Or are you gun nuts really just that cheap, lazy, and uncaring about others to not be willing to give 5 bucks a month for insurance, and once or twice in your life drive to a gun range where an expert can sign off on your competency? Is that not worth potentially saving lives?
I'd go along with all of the above. I'd add in longer waiting periods to allow law enforcement a better chance to weed out those that shouldn't purchase guns and also allow a bit more of a "cooling off" period for those that might otherwise use a gun during an extreme emotional state. I'd also restore a mental health protection.
Just like any right, the right to bear arms is not absolute so the loss of those rights either as a result of criminal action or after being deemed mentally incompetent is acceptable. As to the second part, I think if someone was wealthy enough to afford such a thing and able to jump through the hurdles it would require, then sure. A nuclear sub costs 17.6 billion dollars meaning that only 25 Americans could even potentially afford what it would take just to buy it.....and a lot of them would be too broke after dropping all of their cash on buying it to be able to afford to operate it or store it for any period of time. It's just not an issue. Yet another person suggesting a constitutional amendment doing away with the 2nd amendment.....even if they don't realize it.
I think the one govt requirement should be the above and then a lot of the items like your mentioning should be self regulated by the insurance markets who are assuming the risk. It just takes the whole (govt is trying to take away your freedoms) partisan argument off the table. It’s exactly what a Republican SHOULD want. The fact that they won’t ever do this just shows how compromised they are and how capitalism is not what they now believe in. They are quickly becoming a nationalist socialist political party who pick winners and losers instead of letting a free market decide.
I agree. That's why it's ****ed that I can't buy a rocket launcher or build my own rail gun. If they go after 3D printing we are in a Prison state. I'm 100% serious about that. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is hypocritical.
You can get a grenade launcher if you have the right permits, I imagine you can do the same with a rocket launcher. As to a rail gun, you can legally build your own without any extra permits. You just can't sell them. At least that's how it works in Texas.
Getting federal permits for guns no normal American can even afford because of the ban of imported full autos. Another one of those overlooked items Republicans don't seem to care to fight for. Seems like the only people with the power to really bear arms are rich people that can afford to buy a gun for $10,000. There is not true second amendment in this country for 80% of Americans . I may or may not have a couple of bump stocks but i'm sure they'll go after those to.
The difference is that things like grenade launchers are difficult to own or use safely, any time you are dealing with high explosives there are different rules. When it comes to the 2nd amendment, sure it's been watered down A LOT over the years but I wouldn't go so far as to say that "There is no true second amendment in this country for 80% of Americans", it's difficult to get high explosives and novelty full auto weapons, but I don't think those are unreasonable regulations due to the nature of those weapons. There's reasonable regulations....and then there's the stance of what was once the fringe left that is now the mainstream left. They aren't looking for reasonable regulations, they are looking for either an outright repeal of the second amendment or a de facto repeal of the second amendment.
