General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNothing is off the table--No idea is too stupid to consider
What do we do to stop the mass shootings? The US has creative, intelligent people who can solve this problem. We just have to make it a priority.
What are your ideas?
Here are a couple of mine:
1. Yesterday someone mentioned that we should make the bullets harder to get. That is a good idea. I am sure we can think of a way to do that, but we don't want process to get in the way of the ideas...so that comes later.
2. Stop private sales of guns. Just like driver's licenses, they must be sold through a government entity that can do thorough background checks and track and monitor the weapons.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Even countries with much higher gun violence rates than the US don't seem to have this problem; it's particularly American.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)and a pundit said exactly that to Blitzer. The response from anchors the rest of the night was "we are naming him because that is our job and other networks are doing it to."
If they were not dying in infamy...
ananda
(28,866 posts).. of its aftermath.
It's time to quit, cold turkey.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)not now, when?
Logic over fucking yellowing parchment.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Thanks for the insight!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Like ours, or South Africa's. And we have corresponding levels of violence. Homogenous and equal societies are less violent.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)That "fucking yellowing parchment" is what stands between you and a prison sentence for criticizing Bush, or Reagan, or any other R prez you didn't like.
That "fucking yellowing parchment" guarantees a lot of the rights you enjoy as a citizen of this country.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We're suggesting changing the Second. And the parchment does contain provisions for changing it.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)the Constitution and the Bill or Rights sure made it sound like the poster thinks the whole document is obsolete, just because it is old and yellowing.
Yes, there is a means to amend the Constitution, but it isn't going to happen. And it isn't because of the NRA, which technically can't vote. It's because the vast majority of the citizenry isn't going to allow anyone to take rights away, because they know that once you do that, no right is safe.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I can agree to the rights in one Amendment and be against those in another. The Founders knew we might need to change it. We can make a start on it - the Constitution has been changed before. Maybe now we can't get enough states to agree, but someday it might happen.
The Second is like the Third, obsolete. It refers to 18th century conditions.
branford
(4,462 posts)There are a lot of people, both on the left and right, who would love to see changes in basic constitutional rights, everything from banning "hate speech," outlawing abortion, and creative exceptions to privacy and search and seizure expectations.
Once you cross the Rubicon of seriously trying to alter something so intrinsic to American law and culture as an Amendment in the Bill of Rights, every interest group would want a similar opportunity. That's probably why effectively legal vestiges like the Third Amendment are still part of the Constitution.
Are you prepared to defend every liberal gain in constitutional law for the almost certain futile attempt to repeal the Second Amendment?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's not either/or. Propose and Amendment to repeal the 2nd only. Then have the state conventions or legislatures vote on it. So we can have gun control laws that are sensible. The slippery slope argument just does not work here. The Constitution has been changed before and the rest of it did not go down the drain. The constitution itself has the procedure. The potential is there to change any part of it. People who want to repeal the First Amendment will hopefully never be numerous enough to get that result.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)The NRA has 4.5 million members. You can bet that every single one of them would vote against any restrictions, even if they were on their deathbeds and had to be carried to the polls.
In addition, there are many others who may not belong to the NRA, but enjoy hunting/target shooting/collecting, and don't want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed.
There are still others who would vote to leave the Constitution and BoR as is, just on principle.
On the other hand, there are vastly more people who really wouldn't even care enough about the issue to get out to vote for repeal.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)to vote to a sane 2nd amendment adjustment.
Why do we have to go that far in the first place? There were gun laws up until George II ascended, just reenact those.
Once that is done, *then* go for constitutional amendment. That will be a long hard slog, it's not the 19th century anymore, when it was a lot easier (you think propaganda is bad now, it was worse then) to get changes to the constitution.
We don't have orators any longer, they are too scared of the internet tubes. It will take years, decade maybe, to get a constitutional change and we need someone to pound the message day in and day out. Quite possibly PBO can do this after he leaves office. He would be fantastic at getting common sense to prevail and get people thinking about real change.
Go after the laws or reenact laws already on the books. Or even better, get rid of laws that were written after Columbine, that keep sane guns laws from being written in the first place.
"As Hunting Declines, Conservation Efforts Suffer"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/sports/13deer.html
"A Closer Look At The Decline In Hunter Participation" https://www.biggamelogic.com/ArticlesNews/tabid/136/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/603/A-Closer-Look-At-The-Decline-In-Hunter-Participation.aspx
Number Of Hunters In U.S. Declining
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-hunters-in-us-declining/
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)or anything else. I strongly disagree.
In any event, as you well know, there's two ways to amend the constitution. The first is a resolution by two-thirds of each House of Congress that must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. There is absolutely no chance of this occurring with the Second Amendment.
The other mechanism is the Constitutional Convention, and appears to be your primary suggestion. However, the nature of such a convention means the entire Constitution is up for renegotiation. Although this process still wouldn't have any chance of successfully changing the Second Amendment, I would be terrified of what could slip through.
Never forget that Republicans and conservatives represent about half our country. For instance, have you seen the polling about how many Americans would support some substantive restrictions on abortion? How about exempting flag burning from the First Amendment? Many would also love to take a second look at birthright citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment, etc.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Get 2/3's of the states to vote on it, and it's protections are far more likely be strengthened by such action Many More states are LOOSENING restrictions than tightening them, why would they vote to restrict?
Some People simply refuse to believe that they are outside of mainstream America on the gun issue, 2/3's of states voting? I bet we would likely see gun rights dramatically strengthened in the US.
Folks forget, just as California, and New York gets a vote, so does Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana and Wyoming... I wonder which side gets the 2/3's to change anything???????????
Those that think they can "erase it" clearly have not done the math.
branford
(4,462 posts)ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)Yes, yes it is.
You want to eliminate the 2nd because you think it's right.
There are others who want to limit what others already mentioned upthread. Once you open this box, it's all out war on freedoms I take dear and I'm willing to live with ones I disagree without imposing my will on others but others are perfectly happy imposing their will on others because their emotions trump all.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)You talk like it would an unprecedented action - check out the 18th and 21st amendments and enlighten us where the floodgates of every interest group were opened.
branford
(4,462 posts)The rights protected in the BoR hold a unique and exalted place in our history and culture, and are not comparable to anything else in the Constitution.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)That's why all the amendments exist. They are there to extend the Constitution. They become part of the Constitution when ratified.
The Bill of Rights is nothing more than the first ten amendments. Any changes become the next numbered amendment. The 21st altered the 18th. The 28th could alter the 2nd. There's nothing sacred about the Bill of Rights, the process for amending the Constitution is self contained.
branford
(4,462 posts)You should then have no problems convening a Constitutional Convention or convincing two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states of the immediate need to repeal or substantially alter the Second Amendment. Easy peasy.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I never claimed it would be easy, that's just your hyperbole.
You seemed to imply that it would be impossible to amend one of the amendments, which is obviously incorrect, seeing as it has already been done.
If the nation gets tired enough of mass murder, it will amend the 2nd, or rule that the 2nd is not to protect the rights of the weapons manufacturers.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)Mentioning logic, when your argument is clearly emotional, speaks volumes.
I want to change the 1st amendment as it allows opinions other than mine. Can I count on your support?
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)by of course the RW who doesn't want to do anything was to say that he gave them no specifics.
branford
(4,462 posts)you should have no trouble amending the Constitution, the majority of state constitutions with Second Amendment analogs, and convincing Congress and the states to pass the numerous available gun control legislative proposals, most of which already likely pass constitutional muster.
All you need to do is read the polls from Gallup, Pew and others to realize that for a majority of Americans, our gun laws are obsolete only to the extent that they're too restrictive and need to be liberalized further.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)spanone
(135,844 posts)the nra owns them
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)I think that is an excellent idea. Or somehow address the NRA. I am not sure how to make them less powerful.
spanone
(135,844 posts)CanonRay
(14,104 posts)Those people are conservative, gun-toting right wingers,and that's the kind of state reps they elect and will continue to elect despite the UCC shootings. Sorry to be pessimistic, but if children getting killed in Connecticut didn't change anything, nothing will.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)that infest DU.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Bullshit!!!! Nobody here is apologizing for the murders in OR.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)one would be a callout. Name several if DU is infested. More like you are just posting bull**** and know it.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Both of which will never in a million years be enacted in America because the heavily Republican gun lobby and voting contingent refuse to support either one.
Yes, living in the Old West in 2015 is far simpler than admitting you're wrong.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)I like the idea of universal health care, that would take care of a good portion of the mental ill who do not get the help they need.
Stricter gun control: We need specifics for our representatives.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)confiscating guns.
But since that appears to be something of a non-starter, how about this: Publish actual photographs of people killed by guns. Especially these mass shootings. Maybe if more people saw EXACTLY what guns did, they'd think twice about these murders being inevitable and unstoppable.
If we could have seen what those poor children looked like at the elementary school, we'd have had strong gun control by now, I'm certain.
Second suggestion: Organize the survivors and loved ones of various mass murders and have them descend on Congress and the state legislatures, preferably all on the same day. Armed with photos of their loved ones in life, and what they looked like dead.
Just wringing hands and saying, Oh, how terrible but we can't possibly infringe on the right of every lunatic out there to own a gun and shoot up as many people as possible, just doesn't cut it any more.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)pictures of their kids and then have some people in Congress say that they are actors and those kids didn't die.
There needs to be a list of the bought & paid for people in Congress & Senate, so people will know who to vote against. Needs to be reprinted and updated every week. Keep it in the public eye and pound the message week in and week out. Now is the time to do it while we have debates and campaign speeches. People need to know *who* to vote against and getting bits and pieces here and there is exhausting and people have to work, kids to feed, etc. Let's help them out.
Get a fund together and run ads in newspapers, websites, etc. I'll contribute to it. Anybody else game?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Thank you.
I also think that photographs of the victims should be published. The violence that guns do to the human body is simply not understood by most. It happens off stage, so to speak. What those children of Newton must have looked like, well that should be shown to the world. I think it is rather easy to say, Oh guns aren't so bad, if you NEVER see the consequences.
A couple of years ago I made the mistake of looking at a website, that showed what it looks like, and I'll never quite be the same.
I know that if it were my child killed that way it would be very hard, but I hope I'd have the courage to say to the world, "Look at this. This is what guns do."
Emmet Till's mother insisted his casket be open at his funeral so that the world could see what was done to him. In a similar vein, we need to see what is done with guns.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)Just the Chicago Tribune would need to buy a paper mill to keep up (http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/), but the idea of personalizing and humanizing the losses to people who just see a number like "20 killed 55 shot last weekend" headlines could make an impact.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Before gun purchases?
If people have illness that may interfere with safe use of the firearm, the doctor must submit a warning.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The rest of them don't involve dangerous instrumentalities.
branford
(4,462 posts)Those actually adjudicated a danger to themselves or others are already prohibited under federal and state laws from owning firearms.
No one has the burden of proving anything in order to exercise a constitutional right. Heck, almost everyone on DU opposes showing an identification to vote, but there are no limits to what may be required in the pursuit of gun control.
Whether you like it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected. If you wish it to be treated as a privilege like driving (which is still subject to constitutional protections like due process and equal protection), or ban guns outright, you first need to both amend the Constitution and convince a majority of voters of the wisdom of your proposed restrictions.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Hillary's war did
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)What about the 1A? Words have provoked many killings, murders, injuries.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 2, 2015, 06:56 PM - Edit history (1)
Driver's license. If a doctor feels the driver has a physical or mental issue that may affect their ability to drive, they are required to notify the Department of Licensing who have a couple of options including retesting.
Due process requires notice and an opportunity to contest any actions.
This can be done. Vehicles are considered deadly weapons depending on how they are driven.
A driver's license is a property right, but the courts have decided that the restraint on the license outweighs the right. Guns would be different because they are a constitutional issue. But, I think it could be done. Guns are limited to felons and those convicted of Domestic Violence. So limitations are possible.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)firearm ownership is a right.
See the difference?
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)A driver's license is a property right, once they have it.
And you are correct that there is a difference --as I stated in my post. But, that gun right has been limited when the safety of the community outweighs the right--or some other compelling interest. So, it can be done.
I am hoping for a conversation without the snark.
Thanks
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And guns can be restricted, the problem is that there is no appetite in the country for further restrictions beyond UBC's, as a matter of fact, more citizens are now in favor of firearms rights than less firearms rights.
All you would have to do is get the country behind you and maybe then further restrictions can be enacted, but, as I said, the trend is for looser firearms laws.
Maybe down the road, but probably not in my lifetime.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)It is a right that the state cannot take away without due process.
I hear ya regarding the sway of the country. But it is changing...and it is time to push it.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)back when those books stated that it was a privilege.
I don't see any evidence that the country is changing for more restrictions, a recent Pew research poll shows more people in favor of firearms rights than less.
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/
Growing Public Support for Gun Rights
More Say Guns Do More to Protect Than Put People at Risk
Two Years After Newtown, A Shift in Favor of Gun RightsFor the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.
Support for gun rights has edged up from earlier this year, and marks a substantial shift in attitudes since shortly after the Newtown school shootings, which occurred two years ago this Sunday.
The balance of opinion favored gun control in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown tragedy in December 2012, and again a month later. Since January 2013, support for gun rights has increased seven percentage points from 45% to 52% while the share prioritizing gun control has fallen five points (from 51% to 46%).
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Reverse Citizens United. Get gun money out of congress.
Then we can begin to talk about gun control of any sort.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)It's a private organization, the govt has no authority to "disband" it.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Take a close look at their books. Tax evasion brought down Al Capone.
Put the officers on trial as accomplices along with the accused shooters.
Sue them any time an illegal shooting takes place.
Another approach, rather than eliminating the NRA, is to make them responsible for gun ownership. Make them police gun owners themselves. All gun sales and permits go through them. Anything goes wrong, they are the responsible party. They would soon enough come up with a way to eliminate illegal sales, determine if a person is competent to possess guns.
Is any of this possible? Probably not, but we have to start thinking of alternative solutions and diminish the NRA's influence on congress. Without the NRA and its money, i think congress could come up with some sensible solutions to gun legislation.
branford
(4,462 posts)well beyond the Second Amendment, and attempting to wholly redefine both criminal and civil law, and just try to convince people that the NRA is wrong.
If your only way to win a battle of ideas is to effectively silence your opposition, it reveals more about you and the weakness of your ideas than anything about your opponents.
I would also note that the NRA has about 5 million members, and there are 80-100 million legal gun owners in the USA. Blaming the NRA, an organization that represents a mere 5-6% of gun owners, for the multitude of gun control failures is little more than an exercise in denial and excuses. Their wealth is also vastly overstated, with the relevant records of the NRA's lobbying arm, the NRA-ILA, generally available. In fact, the two biggest gun rights victories in recent years, the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions, were not the result of the NRA, but rather the Second Amendment Foundation, and they are still the vanguard of most of the current gun rights victories in courts nationwide.
Gun control proponents have ample money, including a pet billionaire, and numerous celebrities, politicians and political groups willing to advocate their cause. Notably, in the recent Colorado recall elections, Bloomberg and his allies outspent the opposition by 6 to 1 and still badly lost.
Stop blaming the NRA or money for the lack of gun control, and start speaking to voters.
ancianita
(36,067 posts)sweep and scope.
https://www.saf.org/
DinahMoeHum
(21,794 posts)Unfortunately, it's not fit for public discussion here.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)their books were in order, they know they're under scrutiny by the anti gunners, and no judge is going to allow your second suggestion to be implemented.
We had a chance for sensible gun control back in 2013 with UBC, but the controllers in Congress, IE: Dianne Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy, etc, just couldn't resist loading the bill up with their favorite gun control goodies, like an AWB, mag limits, etc,
if not for that, we would, right now, have a Universal Background Check law in place.
branford
(4,462 posts)Even if a clean UBC bill was passed by the Democratic Senate, it would still needed to have been passed by the Republican House before ever reaching the president's desk.
I don't believe there was any chance of a gun control bill passing the House, particularly right before an election, and for no other reason than the Republicans would want to deny Obama a victory. Moreover. since according to Gallup and Pew, support for gun rights and against restrictions actually increased shortly after Sandy Hook, there was no overriding imperative for the Republicans to even compromise with the president or Democrats.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)To shut down groups they don't approve of. Not all groups, just, you know, the ones I don't support. The easiest way to get rid of the second amendment is to toss the first amendment out the window first. Then everyone knows you mean business.
brush
(53,787 posts)These should all begin immediately will all new gun purchases (I posted this in another thread)
As for the huge backlog of existing guns in the country, legislation should be passed that all gun owners register their guns and get insurance or sell or surrender them for a tax credit.
After a reasonable grace period, if anyone is subsequently caught in possession of an unregistered/uninsured weapon, there will be substantial legal consequences.
This is a workable, reasonable solution that could actually increase revenue for strapped local/state governments and provide some jobs.
And we could go even further: Ban handguns and assault rifles altogether as they are designed for nothing but to SHOOT PEOPLE. Shotguns and rifles would suffice for home protection and pellet guns can be used for target shooting enthusiasts. There is a precedent, Australia did something similar in the '90s and their mass killings stopped.
Let's get it done, America. We are better than this.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)tishaLA
(14,176 posts)2. Get another liberal (or two!) on SCOTUS
3. Get a case before the court that allows it to revisit District of Columbia v. Heller
4. Work like hell to win state government seats in 2020 so we get favorable redistricting and can re-take the House
5. After thousands more deaths, around 2025 or so, pray congress isn't as scared of the NRA as it now is and passes legislation to address the problem
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I don't know why our society has to take a back seat to people like those on this board who have no empathy for the victims and their families of yesterday's shooting but can only post threads supporting their gun rights. I think it is a sickness not to feel what the other people of the country feel when we have these tragedies. They know gun control is discussed after everyone of these shootings so they dust of their usual obfuscation arguments and argue about gun rights. Well we as a society have rights too. We have the right to try and prevent as much gun violence as we can. I can no longer give a shit about gun rights. I have had enough.
We need to get rid of the second amendment it serves no purpose today. The reason other countries can do something about gun violence and we can't is because they have nothing like our second amendment. Until that happens we need a Supreme Court that will interpret the Second Amendment to mean what it says. Not that it gives people the right to bear arms without reguards to the regulated militia wording. That will put us on the same footing as other countries.
We need to make gun owners social outcasts. We need to link them to gun violence because they inhibit our ability to do something about it.
We need to see the NRA as an enemy of the people.
We need public financing of elections so that gun money can't buy politicians and so the NRA can't threaten our elected leaders.
This my not happen in my lifetime since I am 69 yrs. old. Hopefully younger people will not be as enamored with guns as my generation was.
We need to fight back.
We need to start at the local level and work our way up. That is how the Teabaggers managed to take over many states and even Congress. It will take a decade or more, helped along be many more mass shootings, but it can be done. We can make this country as civilized as Canada, if only we try.
treestar
(82,383 posts)States may not have a Second Amendment.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)have some analog to the Second Amendment in their constitutions
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
treestar
(82,383 posts)but they might be easier to change under the state's constitutional procedures.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)have an amendment process that has a lower threshold than the US Constitution. IIRC at least some states can make constitutional changes via referendum.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)In the meantime I suggest pitchforks and torches for the GOP controlled Congress with the power to do something, like today!?
No more hiding behind cameras in safe and cozy TV studios or before like thinking audiences....talk in front of the people and say that, NRA and fucking GOP puppet politicians....cowards not wanting to face the people.
Remember "Face The Nation" of Conkrite days when politicians and asshats like Lapierre actually had to face the nation with answers asked by real journalists and not today's script readers?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Now that's funny. You can't even get support for your ideas on a progressive forum and you think America will shun gun owners?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)However comparing cigarettes to guns to a great many Americans is completely nonsensical.
Whether you like it or not, firearms are an intrinsic part of American history and culture since before our founding. They were important enough to be protected in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and the RKBA has been recognized by the Supreme Court.
Firearms are iconic, interwoven in virtually all are media, used not only in self-defense, but also hunting and sport, to say nothing of our military, which virtually all Americans hold in extremely high regard and trust.
Support for gun rights and against restrictions are at a generational high and increasing, even with events like Sandy Hook. Democrats couldn't even pass firearms restrictions in the Senate when they controlled the body, gun laws are liberalizing nationwide, all while millions more firearms enter circulation every year, the RKBA is further cemented in our jurisprudence, and violent crime rates are half what they were a few decades past.
It's more likely than anti-gun activists will be viewed as narrow-minded bigots in the USA before anything near a majority of Americans treat and view guns like cigarettes.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-have-no-impact-on-support-for-gun-rights-in-the-us
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/
hack89
(39,171 posts)we ban smoking from many places because of second health smoke concerns. The focus of anti-smoking campaigns was never to shun smokers.
The problem you face with gun owners is that people understand very well that 99.9% of gun owners will never hurt someone. The demographics of violent crime are very well known by the public. Tarring all gun owners as pre-criminals is going to fail miserably.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)No need for semi-auto for hunting and illegal for hunting anyway.
Shotguns will not be banned.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)moondust
(19,991 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 2, 2015, 02:13 PM - Edit history (1)
and others and adapt their real-world success stories to the U.S. The wheel does not have to be re-invented.
Of course some other countries may not have a long history of settling scores with guns in a Wild West frontier and cowboy movies, and may not have a history of using guns to slaughter the natives and take their land.
Maybe the government could also issue penis extensions so some little boys could get some respect and feel superior without the threat of death.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)create a massive highly profitable black market for ammunition.
When Obama was elected in 2008 fear tactics spread by the NRA caused a huge surge in demand for ammunition because 'Obama is gonna take it away'. Gun enthusiasts hoarded bullets creating shortages making them harder to obtain and more costly. Eventually manufacturers met the demand. So there are now more rounds available than ever before. And there are now more people equipped to manufacture their own.
2. I'm afraid number two is about as impractical as number one. There are millions of privately owned weapons out there. What do we do when grandpa dies and his heirs want to sell off his expensive gun collection? Some guys have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of guns of every description. Then there are the millions of law abiding citizens that have guns that they wish to trade or sell. Making these gun enthusiasts into criminals probably wouldn't be a good idea.
I do agree that additional measures must be implemented to stop dangerous people from obtaining guns. I'm all for instant background checks and limiting magazine capacity.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)People murder, that does not mean we should end the laws against murder.
Remember--no ideas are off the table. We can address feasibility and process later. That is step two.
Further, if it is illegal to make homemade bullets, they can't have them. We could do what Australia did, create buy-backs.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)So long as it is a voluntary buyback and not a mandatory one. I think that would certainly get some weapons off of the streets. You still have weapons that can be purchased though.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Talking with my local beat cop last night, he reiterated what he's been saying since I've known him-- RFID chips inside ammunition. Slowly transition manufacture of firearms to allow only RFID chip ammunition to be fired. More efficient database tracking of purchase and ownership. National permit-to-purchase requirement.
Though I don't pretend to know... solutions that seem to work effectively in most other industrialized countries are quickly counted as invalid in the US because "we're different"
Rex
(65,616 posts)Would have never thought of something like that!
ancianita
(36,067 posts)to make their own ammo and do. Just sayin'. It's a start, and I'm willing. But it will take a while.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)It's important to note that when you stop ignoring the vast majority of the people on earth, you start to see that those same policies consistently fail in other countries. But we can't count the vast majority of the people on earth because in America "we're different".
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Otherwise we would not have laws against murder. I think it is an excellent idea.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)If you could get around murder laws with a file and 15 mins, then people would want different murder laws.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Ban bow hunting imo.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The AR-10 in .308 with a 5 round mag is an excellent hunting rifle, and the AR-15 makes a great varmint rifle.
I hunt, along with bow hunting and I would oppose any banning of bow hunting.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)In fact why allow hunting firearms period?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You aren't going to get the guns off the street without a draconian policing regime that will make the War on Drugs and the War on Terra look like mere warming up exercises.
That draconian regime will inevitably be employed against minorities and the poor, making their lives even more hellish than they already are.
The disease is American culture overall, we have a culture where a great many people feel completely alienated from it, the shootings are just a symptom. The whole idea of "losers" implies that there also "winners" and not everyone is a good loser. Our entire culture is based on competition rather than cooperation, of course there are going to be losers when all of life is nothing but a giant competition for money, power, status and sex.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Look at gay marriage. It has become acceptable for the most part. There are pockets of people like Kim Davis, but she is vilified.
I agree it would not be easy. But, it is not impossible. We need to start.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And shows no sign of either being won or being ended by the authorities. Hillary for instance is not in favor of legalizing cannabis and yet I have seen videos of her partaking of a far more dangerous yet socially acceptable drug.
We are eyebrow deep in hypocrisy as a society, a lot of people don't necessarily directly notice it as such but it informs all our attitudes.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... I 'd have to say that you're the "winner" of this thread.
The problem is much, much bigger than guns. It's like saying the genocide in Rwanda could have been avoided if they had had more effective machete control laws.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And people think getting rid of guns will fix this society?
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Australia did it. They had a mass shooting where I believe 35 people were killed. And they immediately acted. They have not had one mass shooting since. Their burglars and weapon assaults also went down significantly.
libodem
(19,288 posts)When you buy one and every year after for every one you own. More tax for automatic weapons.
We need a permanent victim's fund and gun owners need to pay for it.
Maybe if it costs too much to own them, ownership and violence will both decline?
branford
(4,462 posts)Moreover, you plan is admittedly designed to make the exercise of a constitutional right so onerous and expensive that it becomes effectively meaningless, at least for the majority of people who aren't rich.
Congratulations, you've offered a "poll tax" for guns, and the courts would immediately strike it down.
Why should I have to pay for the criminal or negligent misuse of a firearm by someone else?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)You pay something because the aggregate has a particular liability.
"Why should I have to wear a seatbelt, i'm a great driver!"
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I'm old enough to remember the "Buckle up for safety" campaign of the mid-1960's. I remember before seatbelts. I experienced the drivers' ed classes that were mainly films about the horrors of car accidents.
Hmmm. Maybe we need equivalent films of the horrors of gun violence . . . . Naah. That would never work.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)gathering places (buildings) to be equipped with sensors that go off when the gun tags for automatic weapons are picked up when the weapons are within 500 feet of the building, Tag all automatic clips and armor paraphernalia. Register all firearm dealers and make sure the weapon tags include a custom tag for each dealer. Set stiff penalties for violations of these regulations including mandatory jail time for breeching the GPS tag requirement. Set a date certain for all such technology to be applied...2017 etc.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)of about 30.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)Number 1: Make murder illegal.
Number 2: Ban guns from school.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)I think naysayers have an important role in creating change. But, I think they also can come up with ideas that would help.
Any suggestions?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)make these lunatics enroll in a "well regulated militia," make them go through qualifying physical and mental training, and regulate the ever living crap out of them.
might weed out some of them
edit...good post., btw
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The SCOTUS ruled that the 2A is an individual right not connected to militia service.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)wonder how the founders would see this now
something tells me they wouldn't be too keen on seeing people walking down the street with their AK-47.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The opening battle of the American Revolutionary war was the battle of Lexington. The British (read: government forces) moved in to seize a weapons cache that included 24 lbs. cannon (meaning the cannon balls weighed 24 lbs.). Those cannons had little use except destroying fortifications.
That's what the founders would see as worth rebelling for. The fact that modern gun owners content themselves with semi-automatic rifles makes me wonder what it is gun controllers keep agitating for.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)at that point and the colonists had crossed an ocean to get away from them. a little different imo.
would you rather that we all had tanks and grenades at our disposal? not being snarky, i am curious....where do you see the appropriate line? type of weaponry? amount? other restictions? or just a free for all?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)As I stated previously, "The fact that modern gun owners content themselves with semi-automatic rifles makes me wonder what it is gun controllers keep agitating for."
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)it specifically states that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)as the gop
and just because the dem platform says so, doesn't mean they have the correct interpretation of the 2a. they can, of course, put anything they like in their platform.
hack89
(39,171 posts)That's good enough for me.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i think as a society we have to reconsider the interpretation, esp in light of the u.s. kill record compared to other modern countries with stricter gun laws.
i don't think it has to be an absolute. i would settle for really really restrictive gun laws, mega background checks, and lots of restrictions on ammo, type of gun, and equipment normally used by military/le ..bulletproof vests and the like.
in this day and age, people stockpiling guns, ammo and gear is insane imo, esp with the loopholes that exist allowing anyone and their brother to get this stuff
hack89
(39,171 posts)Good luck with that.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and more people will die. makes me sad
hack89
(39,171 posts)times change, don't you think?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)which is why i think the idea of a citizenry armed to the teeth is outdated and crazy. in their time, it made a lot more sense.
as to the issues you mention, i have no idea what they would think. but i imagine heads exploding of them thinking about it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Then amend the constitution. That is the only path available to you.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)frizzled
(509 posts)For many people, the idea of guns is a bit abstract, especially if you don't own a gun or don't know anyone killed by one either. The NRA and their ilk take full advantage of that fact. If guns are restricted, my life wont' change a bit but for the gun crowd, their life will change considerably and so the NRA gets them all fired up.
But start publishing photos from these massacres and other innocent victims of gun crime and you'll change people's minds really fast. Imagine if you posted photos of all of the children killed at Newtown and next to it, you posted the crime scene photos showing their brains blown out. There would be a huge backlash against the gun crowd.
If we couldn't pass a few simple laws after Newton, then nothing will change this time. But post some of those photos and watch out, it's a whole new game.
The American public need to have their nosed rubbed in it like a bad puppy who shits on the carpet. Let them see the blown apart children at Sandy Hook in HD color and then explain why any civilian needs to own an assault rifle.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)to train that out of a puppy. old wives tale
but i agree with you about the pictures. If people saw the ugliness it might change a few minds.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)Is that the changes that many of us would like, such as close gun show loopholes and ban assault weapons, would have no effect at all on many of the school shootings.
The other law many of us would like to see, is one that would somehow prevent weapons from being purchased by people who are mentally ill. The problem with that is, how would the metal status of someone be communicated without violating the privacy of people seeing therapists?
Red Mountain
(1,733 posts)In a way that makes criminals avoid them and regular hotheads/idiots think twice.
Long jail time, civil forfeiture, etc.
Doesn't touch the 2nd amendment. Doesn't take guns away from law abiding citizens. I don't think that approach is going to bear fruit for those who would like to see a reduction in gun violence.
Anybody else who uses a gun in ANY sort of criminal way gets long, long jail time.
Anything like.....leaving one where a kid grabs it and hurts themselves or someone else. 20 years.
Leaving it where they might....like in a bathroom. I'd think a month in jail would be an adequate reminder.
Word will get around. The safe and legal gun owners will continue to be just that.....but the others.....
Examples will be made.
And the culture will change.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)Just today I heard a student, at the high school where I teach, make a light comment about how something (whatever she was talking about) makes her want to shoot people.
School shootings are part of the fabric of their reality. For them, that's what kids do when they are at the end of their rope, when they are hopeless and desperate. It really resonates with the rebellious and isolated nature of being a teen.
The only way to change this is to NOT publicize school shootings, to avoid canonizing the killer, advertising his motives, the details of his arsenal, how he chose his victims, and his sad life that drove him to this end. Even just limiting coverage to the print media would practically eliminate any exposure to young people.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)One of the first posts on this thread suggested that. I pundit last night on CNN said the same thing. CNN got defensive and said it was their job. But many of the shootings are copy-cats. The next shooter sees this infamy.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)seeing as how one can't do it in one step. It's simply impossible for anything to be done in steps or stages. All or nothing, totally binary. Damn, they sound kinda like conservatives, don't they?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1) Banning of handguns. We can argue the wiggly bits here, of course, but the reality is that a handgun has little to no use beyond human-to-human combat. Certainly they are not used to hunt (though I've seen 'em used as self-defense against bears. This seems a rather exceptional instance for most.)
2) bans on high-capacity clips for long guns. There's a reason that this is a joke:
These measures wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment - Unless you know some people who own functioning and armed surface-to-air missile systems, it's pretty evident that the specifics of what constitutes "arms" is subject to restriction under the 2nd amendment.
I would also argue that non-military weapons should not look like military weapons. But that's mostly aesthetics, and certainly bumps into the first amendment. maybe instead of a ban, some sort of incentive to the manufacturers to avoid that particular model. Why? it fuels the fetishism. If your guns look like "army-man" guns, the nthe more likely you are to imagine that you are an "army man" which seems ot have a direct correlation to how much of a fucking psycho you are. Not saying it's the cause, but it doesn't help.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm not saying take all new 18 year olds on an Ahayuasca-fueled vision quest (or am I?) but the function of those rituals seems to be not only the establishing of a contextual narrative for the life of the individual and the role of an adult as it plugs into the collective society and universal consciousness, along with it usually some form of ego death and rebirth, but also the establishment of greater levels of empathy for the other which is, through expanded awareness, seen as a mirror of the self.
...
.....
Honestly, at this point it's probably more likely than any sort of Federal gun legislation.
forthemiddle
(1,381 posts)I know that is what gets the most media, but let's also look at the carnage that is being done in our inner cities every single weekend.
What could be done about those shootings, and killings is that the first time a person is caught with committing a crime with a gun there should be an automatic 10 year sentence. That could be a federal law that I am sure the VAST majority of people could get behind.
Many here complain about the fear of going to school, or going to the mall because of a deranged killer, what about the single mother trying her damnest to raise her kids but afraid to leave her apartment? Those are the ones we can help NOW, TODAY!
No plea bargains, no exceptions. Make our juveniles responsible for the first crime, not their last crime.
The truth is that the vast majority of killings are not in mass murders, but one on one crimes. And usually the perp has been caught before.
I know this sounds tough on crime, but when we get those every day shootings under control, the others will follow.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)-Magical Ray that transforms guns into bunnies.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)But if I had one...sigh.
valerief
(53,235 posts)That may be illegal but not as illegal as what I REALLY want. Which I don't dare say. Cuz that would be wrong. And I'd get another hide. For wanting people who kill Americans on a daily basis via free trade laws and poverty growth to get their just desserts.
GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)Serious here...
Take "gun control" off the table since it's not reasonable to control 310 million + guns.
Use reason and common sense.
Advocate for a system that is fair and inclusive of everyone, one that provides good paying jobs, free or very low cost education and health care, including mental health care. Advocate for a system that encourages human connection, calm, rational discourse and critical thinking.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)I agree with you that the economic system is messed up. A multi-pronged approach is a good idea. But, I am not willing to take gun control off the table.
GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)In order to talk sense to people like this you have to remove the barriers to sensible dialogue. These people are not rational and the fear of having their guns taken away is real. By taking "control" out of the conversation you are more likely to get them to listen to you.
I got a guy who was really scary in his foamy-mouthed defense of his "God given right" to carry guns to calm down once he realized I never used the phrase "gun control" in my post.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)We need to rename it.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)to "gun safety" although not much the do is for anything of safety. It is still the old control and ban arguments. That is why it is not going anywhere.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)I do not believe "stuff happens" and we can do nothing. I just don't believe that. But, I would like to hear for your unique perspective how you believe we could solve the problem.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)UBC, if not federal by the states. My preference is for a license at little or no cost that would require training. It could have the type of weapon as an endorsement like a car or motorcycle. If I have my license show it, verify it and obtain my weapon, no waiting period.
In exchange 250 state concealed carry. Mandatory safety course ought in schools, of course parents can opt out. Limit magazines to under 20 for rifles and what fits in the grip of a pistol. some kind of gun buyback is another possibility to help get unwanted weapons turned. I am not for bans by features or cosmetics like bayonet lugs.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Similar to the requirements of obtaining a driver's license, including training and testing. I would include background checks, and annual renewal.
I like the idea of a buy-back for guns and ammo. We had one in Seattle that worked well. I was reading about Australia's swift response to gun violence, and buy-backs worked well for them.
That is a start.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)would be very if not prohibitively expensive. maybe every 5 years. In exchange I think all states have to honor others just like a drivers license. I should be able to renew the same way. And Finally I think sound suppressors should be removed from the NFA as they are indeed a safety device,.
beevul
(12,194 posts)No matter what you call it.
If half as much time money and energy were put into mitigation strategies ( making it much harder for someone who has a gun and bad intent to carry it out) against an active shooter scenario in public places, as is put into gun control, we'd likely see things change for the better.
branford
(4,462 posts)That means each side gives up something. Note that demanding draconian gun control and settling for a less gun control is not compromise, it's conditional surrender. Given that the current status quo strongly favors gun rights and makes further national restrictions near impossible, gun control advocates are in a much weaker position with less leverage, and thus will have to give more.
My personal suggestion is an objective and thorough national training and safety and standard protocol for the purchase and carry of concealed firearms, with a national license, including the current NICS background check system with additional funds for improvements in data collection and coordination, including universal background checks with sufficient safeguards against anything close to a national registration list. If all objective background and training criteria are met, licenses will be issues under a "shall issue" mandate. No "may issue" allowed. Heck, I would even throw in prohibitions against open carry in certain areas, with clear exceptions for obvious matters like hunting, sport, and basic transport, as well as stricter federal firearm crime sentences, including improved laws against straw purchases.
In return, I would want a national concealed carry reciprocity system similar to drivers' licenses. There must be full preemption of all state and local gun ordinances. If the national license is good in Texas and Oklahoma, it's also good in New York and California, including all cities and localities.
I would note that the problem of gun violence will never be "solved." We are a heterogeneous and free nation with substantial due process and similar rights, there are over 350 million firearms in circulation, and crime and mental illness is not going away anytime soon. The problem, at best, can be reasonably managed and improved.
Waldorf
(654 posts)Seems it wouldn't work unless you have registration. Since all new firearms already go thru a background check and FFL's selling used firearms go thru a background check that leaves private sales. Since there is no registration how would the UBC know when a firearm has transferred between hands?
branford
(4,462 posts)I think many would be surprised how welcome and widely used it would be.
National registration is generally a red line to many gun rights supporters. No matter the claims of gun control advocates, when they cite Australia, Britain and Canada as models of gun regulation, it's widely understood that registration is an incremental step towards easier confiscation. The fact that Canada's registration system was such a boondoggle that much of it was repealed, and the fools in New York State used lists to incorrectly seize weapons from people who they believed, but were not, mentally ill, only heightens the fear and distrust of any registration scheme.
One day a registration system may be possible, assuming there's proof it would actually reduce crime, but gun control proponents have a quite a long way to go to prove they truly recognize and respect the right to keep and bear arms, both as a matter of law and fact.
Waldorf
(654 posts)This seems to be a popular idea even among strong pro-gun rights people.
branford
(4,462 posts)Despite the hyperbolic claims of some about the evils of gun owners, the vast majority are everyday, law-abiding Americans, and when they sell a tool they know to be dangerous, would be more than happy to have a easy resource to improve everyone's safety and security.
The problem is two-fold: UBC legislation is often linked to other matters like assault weapon bans and magazine limits that are not nearly as uncontroversial. Also, as we earlier discussed, the actual proposed legislation includes, often intentionally, items like national registration or difficult or onerous restrictions, such as hurdles to loaning a gun to a friend at the shooting range or leaving firearms in a will, and thus cannot be passed as a practical matter.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)After all, if the RW'ers can get something as radical as Citizen's United as the law of the land, why not a group of Judges who believe that the 'well regulated' statement in the 2nd needs to be supreme?
Not saying it would be easy with all of the gunners out there, but a sustained effort by the rest of us could do it.
The posts whining about how people want to take away their 'right to keep and bear arms' are pathetic. How about we join the rest of tie civilized world where people can keep hunting rifles and shotguns, but under regulation. The rest are instruments for barbarians.
http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)go to the states
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)There's no support for it in Congress and a majority of the states probably would oppose.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)The gun lobby can be overwhelmed if we want to do so.
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)
How exactly do you intend to "overwhelm" the gun rights lobby, no less effectively sneak a repeal of a constitutional amendment past anyone?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-have-no-impact-on-support-for-gun-rights-in-the-us
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/
n2doc
(47,953 posts)I don't know when that will be. But this country was not this way in the past, and will not be this way in the future.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)1. buy backs guns and ammo
2. stop private gun sales
3. set up government licensing that requires back ground check and testing, just like driver's licenses
4. require insurance for those who have guns, just like vehicles (pay for injury) for owners/ shooters
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)It allows people to trade in their old guns for a good price and then go buy new ones.
branford
(4,462 posts)I've written extensively on DU on the myriad of reasons why mandatory firearm insurance proposals, as currently advocated, cannot, will not, and should not ever be passed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7135948
libodem
(19,288 posts)Make work and school more humane again. Seek to help people before they become disturbed. More social work and psychological assessment and assistance.
Also profile gun owners. Especially stockpilers.
stage left
(2,962 posts)You register, license, and insure guns, just like cars.
riversedge
(70,242 posts)Sounds like a great idea to me...
How about we treat young men who want guns like we do women who want an abortion?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Iggo
(47,558 posts)lame54
(35,293 posts)it is a horribly written sentence that has caused us a lot of grief
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Ban and confiscate any firearm which uses removable magazines.
Ban and confiscate any firearm which uses a strip-fed magazine.
Military, etc exempt on duty.
branford
(4,462 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)no longer valid (a well-regulated militia is NOT the best security of a free state, a huge kick-ass military is), I figure they could...re-interpret the restrictive clause if they desired.
branford
(4,462 posts)and would remove protections for nearly every popular and ubiquitous privately-owned firearm. Since the Militia clause is not considered restrictive under Heller, this too would need to be reinterpreted.
Moreover, who exactly is going to confiscate over 100+ million firearms and god knows how many magazines? That's blood on the streets / civil war political and social territory.
As with any idea, you are free to advocate as you wish. I guess you're not shy about going big.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"What do we do to stop the mass shootings?"
Not my intention to try to resolve if we had the desire/notion/balls to do it.
Re: the 2nd: The people re-invented the Militia, in total contrast to the beliefs and intentions of the founders.
No reason we couldn't decide the restriction isn't really in our best interest either.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Part of the problem is the arsenalists.
branford
(4,462 posts)A farmer with 2 rifles and a shotgun would become a criminal?
Do you have any actual statistical evidence that those who legally own 3 or more firearms are more likely to engage in criminality than anyone else? If so, I would love to read the research.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Let's discuss a scenario that's not particularly controversial, a small rural farmer and hunter whose family eats what he kills.
One caliber of rifle might be used to deal with small vermin, a larger caliber rifle another for hunting animals like deer or elk, and a shotgun for both different kinds of prey while hunting or larger predators. One or more of the guns were handed down from his father or grandfather, a common occurrence in many parts of the country.
Three guns, no handguns, nothing necessarily semi-automatic, and yet overnight this hypothetical peaceful (and likely poor) farmer and woodsman would become a criminal? That's absurd.
Whether it's a simple lack of understanding or knowledge concerning firearms or just an emotive, knee-jerk revulsion to guns, absolutist and draconian suggestions are they reason why gun rights supporters simply don't trust gun control advocates and comprise that might actually improve safety is effectively off the table.
ancianita
(36,067 posts)For producers:
1. Yearly federal audit of all federally and privately licensed firearms and ammo manufacturers -- accessible to the general public at no cost or submission of FOIA's
2. Federal registers of all firearm sales to the public -- accessible by court order only.
3. Establishment and maintenance of an ATF office at one DMV facility per county -- 3, 147 counties, total; personnel assigned based upon local gun sales
For consumers:
1. two forms of ID for each purchase -- birth certificate and one photo to prove residency within the county of purchase
2. a hand written medical doctor's sign off on mental fitness from within the same county of residence
3. written proof of firearm insurance, amounts set by industry standards
4. sworn, written affidavit attesting to no legal dependents under age 21 living in the purchaser's residence
5. three day waiting period for national registration of #'s 1 - 4 and criminal background check for sale
6. if # 1-4 met, sale proceeds with four copies of detailed certificate of all extra items purchased with gun sale -- one to state, one to feds, one for store and one for customer
7. Written copies of all subsequent private sales of the that same firearm and ammo -- one to state, one to feds, one for purchaser, one for owner/seller
Rights are accompanied by the above responsibilities for the greater rights of safety for the majority of citizens.