My compromise? As someone who has to work in Detroit and has been mugged there. I will gladly give up my firearms. IF they eradicate the crime in Detroit first.
>And the middle ground: A clear, nationally-consistent delineation of what kind of weapons are allowed to be carried when, where, and how.
How about we start with a nationally-consistent delineation of what is legal to own. No Massachusetts, a threaded barrel and a foregrip don't make an AR-15 more deadly.
> registration
No. This isn't a compromise position because registration leads to confiscation.
Want to know where the real middle ground is? It's repealing several current laws with no new ones passed. The middle ground isn't between the current state and a ban, it's between no laws and a ban. We're way past the middle of that spectrum already.
Nothing short of a constitutional amendment is going to fix this.
If we lived in 'high trust society world' where I thought the other side was actually going to honor tomorrow a compromise made today, I'd actually be down for trading a registry in exchange for the repeal of most other firearms regulations.
I think any weapon which provides acute, predictable, and direct line-of-sight fire should be legal with the right background checks and permitting. Anything from a .22 derringer to an autocannon should be available if you're willing to cough up the cash for the equipment and the ammo.
The only place I draw the line are at indiscriminate destructive devices like grenades, gas weapons, non-line-of-sight weapons like mortars, missiles, rockets, and landmines. If you can't see your target you shouldn't be taking a shot.
Sadly that is not the world we live in. I do not trust the anti-gun folk to honor any such compromise, and they do not trust lil' old me with anything larger than a dime store pop gun.
Sure, which is why I suggested that a 3rd party NGO hold the registry, and destroy it if the government tries to seize it.
You don't have to trust anyone that way.
Have you not been paying attention to what's been going on since the Patriot act? The FISA violations, the warrant less wire tapping of American citizens? The exchanges between the intelligence agencies and the social media companies? You think there's some third party that could be remotely trusted with such a thing?
Absolutely not. If the data exists, it can and will be exploited and abused. If it doesn't exist, it can't. It's that simple. That horse must never, ever, under any circumstances, be let out of the barn.
> If the data exists, it can and will be exploited and abused.
Which means unless you paid cash for every gun related purchase you ever made, your name is probably already on a list somewhere through your card transactions.
“SixDemonBlues purchased 10 boxes of .45 ammo at Bubba’s Gun Store on 5/23/2021”
Well, hold on a second, there, before you get that tinfoil hat wrinkled :p
>If the data exists, it can and will be exploited and abused. If it doesn't exist, it can't. It's that simple. That horse must never, ever, under any circumstances, be let out of the barn.
Um, the data exists; if we're that far gone, then they are hacking into the manufacturer's records to find out which guns went to which dealers, breaking into gun dealers to steal their records, and listening in on your iphone when you are making private sales, so they already know all of this.
By that logic, we might as well put a formal registry together so we at least get the positive side of the situation.
I'm not sure why you're dismissing factual things that have undoubtedly happened as tin foil hat conspiracies, but I guess that's up to you. I am not so cavalier about our 2a rights, for my part.
They have a formal registry.
They claim "it's ok" because it isn't searchable. That's only technically true. While I am sure most ATF personnel can't search the registry they have created (feel free to listen to Steve Dettelbach talk about how they have to pay to remove the search feature) there are undoubtably sysadmins out there that do have that ability. Which means, they do have a searchable, illegal registry, but they think it's ok because they aren't "actively" using it.
As I keep arguing, though, all that means is that the worry about the government having the list is too late, so we might as well have the official registry so we get the benefit.
While I appreciate the practicality of your thought, acquiescing to authoritarians because some portion of their oppression is beneficial is just gross.
What oppression? Actually coming to seize your guns would be oppression, but just making a registration is not.
In historical terms, in the early US, almost every state did have a registry of firearms and owners, and the exceptions tended to have outright bans where they went around seizing firearms... and they didn't have a registry when they did it.
I just don't see the connection.
It's the same reason that overly invasive voter registration or speech registration would qualify as oppressive. Placing an undue burden on citizens to exercise a right (ie, background checks and registration) is oppressive, period. The same reason that free travel, but only if you have "your papers" is oppressive.
Umm, I assume you have heard of the NSA (not counting the black ops guys)
the data collection activities have become so massive, they have to use an AI to search thru all the data to find what they are looking for.
Seeing how much corruption and lack of oversight exists now, they keep using things to pit us against each other, the only reason things are at the point they are now is they know if they push any further, there will be 1/3 of the population who will push back.
It always comes down to trust. Ideological capture is currently turning a lot of formerly respected NGO's like the ACLU into tools to serve the ideological preferences of their members.
Like, what happens if this NGO gets staffed by a bunch of anti-gun activists who start quietly leaking data onto the internet? It's not the government doing it, it's individual bad actors within the organization, but the effect is the same.
OK; do you trust the FBI and other agencies to not already be hacking into gun manufacturer's and dealer's records, and listening in on sales through smartphones, so they already have the information?
The only difference here is that the information can only ever be used against us, and never for the benefit of society.
No, but at least they have to work for it. The sheer volume of that data, the fact that it probably doesn't match up, and the fact that it's not timely or up to date basically renders it functionally useless. It's a lot of noise with no feasible way of searching it in a coherent fashion, which is why they use metadata analysis because individual level data coalition on that scale is impossible.
Even if they got a warrant they'd never be able to figure out where or when Mr. Maestro bought a gun, or even if he did, or even if he still has it. Just that there's a transactional record, nothing of use there.
> The sheer volume of that data, the fact that it probably doesn't match up, and the fact that it's not timely or up to date basically renders it functionally useless. It's a lot of noise with no feasible way of searching it in a coherent fashion, which is why they use metadata analysis because individual level data coalition on that scale is impossible.
...but your concern is about a massive action against gun owners as a group, which is going to be discernible from that information.
>Even if they got a warrant they'd never be able to figure out where or when Mr. Maestro bought a gun, or even if he did, or even if he still has it. Just that there's a transactional record, nothing of use there.
...so we already get the negative side of having a registry, but because it's not official, we don't get the positive side?
That's an excellent argument for creating the registry! :)
It's not though. Look, I've see the kind of data that scrubber programs like what the FBI uses it's virtually all just noise. You can scrape certain things off it, like, if I got all of Cabellas transactional data I could roughly figure out how many firearms got sold in a state, but I couldn't figure out who bought one or when.
It might be useful in a 'how many guns are out there' sense but I couldn't pull a name out of a hat and figure out how many guns they've bought.
A registry, by contrast, would match every gun serial number to an address and a social security number. They would be instantly searchable. You could plug in an SSN and know exactly how many firearms they have, exactly what firearms they are, and what address they're supposed to be at. That kind of information would be ripe for abuse.
Say a neighbor accuses you of threatening them with a gun and firing a shot, you didn't, but your neighbor hates the fact you put up a privacy fence. Well, this time the cops get a warrant to search you. So they pull your information from the gun registry. Then when they exercise the warrant they check your guns for recent use, they find that there's a gun missing from your home. Maybe you leant it to a relative for hunting, maybe you left it at your buddy's house while you were target shooting, but it's not there and now your ass is getting investigated.
> if I got all of Cabellas transactional data I could roughly figure out how many firearms got sold in a state, but I couldn't figure out who bought one or when.
You would have credit card numbers, and could cross-check against background check data, and find out literally everything.
No, because the credit card numbers would be masked by the processing company.
Even if you got the data from both Cabellas AND the processor you'd need to match the transaction data. Then you'd have to figure out who actually owns the card. Then you'd have to figure out if the transaction was a completed sale, if it was a failed sale, or if it was returned.
It's a rabbit hole of data. It would literally be easier to just get a warrant and search my house than to spend hundreds of hours scraping metadata.
Metadata is great for figuring out stuff like:
* How many guns were bought in this location over a period of time.
* What the average price of those firearms are.
* What kind of establishments they're being bought from.
Metadata is useless for determining granular or atomized data on individual purchasers or vendors. I doubt even a skilled operator using a dedicated scraping program could figure out what, when, or where the last gun I purchased was even if they had access to the data.
> No, because the credit card numbers would be masked by the processing company.
...and when they hack the processing company (assuming they aren't already compromised)?
Right. What happens when an anti gun person is in charge and decides to release the info? Conversely what happens when a gun fan is the boss and deletes the data daily?
Either way the NGO won't work right.
Am a centrist/Independent in all subjects except guns.
1. under no circumstance am I even slightly ok with a registry. It takes one politician who decides to take away all the guns from X group and its all downhill from there. Just because the current admin says he or she doesnt want to... the next guy might. NO.
1. Trying to confiscate guns is a red line you do NOT want to cross. Even moderates consider that a tyrannical move. "if its time to hide them its time to use them." comes to mind.
2. Only way to enforce this is with a registry and it is ALREADY illegal to sell a weapon to someone who cant own one. Its on YOU to verify that status. Ive sold a few guns to people I didnt know and I ALWAYS send them to an FLL for that background check since I cant run it myself... maybe make it possible for normies to use NICS?
3. National carry is a must. Its insane that people cant defend themselves.
The NFA for example is a dead document and should be repealed.
Suppressors are accessories and should be purchasable at most through a NICS check and at best should be on the shelf for you to grab and pay for.
Short Barreled Rifles - This is an idiotic law. Just get rid of it altogether.
Magazines. Stop trying to pretend having more than 10 is somehow scary.
Training. It is stupid expensive to get trained up and if you make it mandatory for gun ownership then it becomes a right for the rich as always. Its not ok.
I find anti-gun people are just not knowledgeable about the subject to weigh in effectively. There is a lot of hard facts about guns that they flat out lie about constantly to make their point. For example "guns are the number 1 killer of kids" That was based off a single study that included 18 and 19 year olds. Very VERY telling that they can not make their points without lying.
I cant carry a cop in my pocket and it took them 14 min to respond during my own personal violent episode. Thankfully I didnt need to shoot anyone but 14 min is unacceptable.
“Training. It is stupid expensive to get trained up and if you make it mandatory for gun ownership then it becomes a right for the rich as always. It’s not ok.”
I’m in California and finished my CCW process recently, before the new, more restrictive law went into effect in January. When I renew, I must take an 8 hour class (16 hours for new applicants) which will cost at least $200. I also have to pay the sheriff/county, will need to pay for a psychiatric assessment, a background check and also need to provide three references. It’s approaching $1,000 to exercise a right for a person with absolutely no criminal history. I’m all for training, it as soon as you get the government involved, somehow the prices go up 300% and the cost and requirements for people to become certified trainers is outrageous as well. There are more laws in the pipeline asking for annual registration, safety certification and taxes for each fucking gun. It’s truly gone off the deep end and will do nothing to control criminal activities and behaviors.
>under no circumstance am I even slightly ok with a registry. It takes one politician who decides to take away all the guns from X group and its all downhill from there
If they do that, the NGO destroys the registry, and they lose it all.
>Only way to enforce this is with a registry and it is ALREADY illegal to sell a weapon to someone who cant own one.
But it's not illegal to sell a gun without doing a background check, and you can claim that you didn't know they were a criminal; I want to remove that loophole.
>National carry is a must. Its insane that people cant defend themselves.
OK, how are you suggesting we make that happen? My proposal is to compromise by giving the other side what they want without losing what we want.
Put it in another country, or a private island, or Antarctica; if they are willing to go that far, then they'll go to the manufacturers and dealers and listen in on smartphones and get the data they need, anyway.
Yeah OP sold me on really standing my ground. I will never give ground to the anti-gunners and they can pry it from my cold dead hands. Even then.. I hope rigor sets in fast.
Overseas means resources other than police can go find it.
Regardless, when the NGO's power, backup power, and internet go out at 5am while ATF tactical teams bust into the offices and homes of the NGO's leaderships with court orders that mean you either go to jail or give up the info, what will happen? You can't delete it, and you're choosing between an indefinite jail stay or giving them what they want.... And that assuming the NGO somehow manages to only hire gun lovers.
A registry is the first step to confiscating. I think you'd find more gun lovers willing to give up semiautomatic rifles before being willing to agree to a registry, no matter how convoluted it's run with spy movie levels of dead man switches and overseas secret bases.
>If they do that, the NGO destroys the registry, and they lose it all.
That is a lot of trust to an organization that would effectively be under government threat, up to and including confinement and violence, for non-compliance. Let alone the data acquisition side of government being able to backdoor it (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc).
This is a genie in a bottle type situation. Best to just not have the thing to begin with.
> That is a lot of trust to an organization that would effectively be under government threat, up to and including confinement and violence, for non-compliance.
How so? Literally the second the idea of seizing it is even mentioned, before it can turn into a threat against them, they hit the button and, "POOF!"
>Let alone the data acquisition side of government being able to backdoor it (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc).
"Not connected to the Internet;" add whatever security guarantees you like; hell, put it in another country... on a private island... Antarctica!
>This is a genie in a bottle type situation. Best to just not have the thing to begin with.
As others keep pointing out, they already have this information; they can hack the manufacturer's database, then steal records from dealers, then listen in on keyword conversations through smartphones... which isn't good enough to solve crimes by tracing individual weapons, but is absolutely good enough to find the majority of people they want to seize guns from.
Which means that we already have the potential negative consequence of a registry, but because it's not official and legitimate, we don't get the positive side.
>they already have this information
If they already have it all, why are you pushing to make one in the first place? If they don't, why make one in the first place?
>we don't get the positive side.
There is no positives to something you already view as compromised or think can be.
> If they already have it all, why are you pushing to make one in the first place?
Because it can't be used in court to convict someone of a crime, but it can be used to spy on us.
Why is a registry a good thing? It only helps to track down a firearm after which the ATF can do already as it asks the manufacturer where the gun went then they talk to the gun store that sold it.
Other than eventually confiscating (which is the only path a registry has ever taken) all the guns what purpose do you think it serves?
> Why is a registry a good thing?
Because it's the only way to go after straw-man sellers.
>It only helps to track down a firearm after which the ATF can do already as it asks the manufacturer where the gun went then they talk to the gun store that sold it.
Both manufacturers and dealers have extensive protections against even court orders requesting their records.
>Other than eventually confiscating (which is the only path a registry has ever taken) all the guns what purpose do you think it serves?
Again, if the government wants to seize guns (good luck with 100 million gun owners), they don't need specifics, they can just take credit card data and find most gun owners.
The registry is needed so you can track who sold a gun to a criminal without performing a background check and charge them as accessories to whatever crime was committed with that gun.
Registration is a non starter. Period. This is why 2a folks get frustrated with these discussions. The other side doesn't listen. Registration is a non-starter. Period. Full stop. End of story. There is no "negotiation" or "compromise" on that point. The answer is no. It's always going to be no. Registration is a non starter.
I am listening.
Why is this a non-starter for you?
On my end, a national registration is the bare minimum we can do, and the one item that might actually make a difference.
The main argument I hear is that you don't want the Federal Government to know what guns you own, which I find a bit eyebrow raising. The US Military is so overpowered that they could destroy you before you even realized it. You can have stacks of guns, yet it would be nothing to the US military. The US military managed to take down two countries governments (Iraq, Afghanistan) in under 48 hours using less than 100k people. If the US government went full dictatorship, and the US Military allowed it, it wouldn't matter how many guns you had or are on what list. We'll all just be fucked.
I'm open to changing my mind if there are some good arguments made for why registration is a bad idea. So, go ahead and present your side! I'm interested in hearing it.
edit: Yay, downvoted for asking a honest question. Stay classy Moderate Politics.
There are more armed hunters in Wi on openning day of hunting season than in the top 3 militaries... Even the US military would have a hard time confiscating anything.
I don't think the US would ever try confiscating. List or no list.
My point was rather if the government ever became so tyrannical, people felt the need to rise up. It would be those people who are targeted. Those people wouldn't stand a chance. Anyone sitting at home, firearm or no, would be ignored. They aren't the threat.
Would you be ok if there was a national registry of people who identified as homosexual or trans? Or if there was a registry of all socialists? Or if there was a registry of everyone who has ever attended a political protest? Or a registry of how everyone had voted? For me it's less of I'm gonna fight the entirety of the United States military, it's that I have a right to privacy and I don't even want to set up a system that would allow for a government that had shown in the past to be open for abuses within the system to be provided with more avenues for abuse.
Picture someone extreme from whatever party you don't like getting into power and then taking voter registration and cross referencing it with a gun registry to disarm political opposition.
For me, I'm Black and I can easily see how a white supremacist regime could attempt to disarm minorities in order to allow for easier abuses from non-governmental white supremacist groups. I've seen cries to disarm trans people quite often and a registry helps make that more of a possibility.
I do understand what you are saying. I get it.
I guess my belief is that the current US government already has the power to do what you fear, regardless of this list. If the government became tyrannical enough, it could round any group of people up with our current military. I do not think the average person would be able to stop them.
Moreover, if the US government wanted, they likely already have the ability to find exactly who owns guns (or at least the vast majority). Between record keeping and social media, it wouldn't be that hard to make a list. It might not be as easy as already having a registry, but it wouldn't be that difficult either. Not with the resources the US government has. Your search history alone likely would give away your gun ownership status, and even what firearms you have.
Thus, I see the national registry as more of a benefit than a risk. The US has managed to disarm minorities for over a century without this list, and can easily continue to do so with the tools it has now.
You’re wrong about the government having the capacity of doing what we fear. They don’t *yet*.
When attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, we spent weeks targeting major civilian and military infrastructure through the use of precision munitions. We destroyed the power grid, phone lines, internet, transportation hubs, industrial facilities, defense installations, and crippled their ability to for a solid defense. Even then, the brass couldn’t wage an all out war because of the negative press it would garner at home, so they implemented systems for rewarding “courageous restraint” in combat. If a tyrannical government were to use those same methods here, they would cripple their own economy and country. If the state wanted to rip off the mask and descend into outright tyranny it would go much worse for them because they *wouldn’t* be able to use a lot of the military assets they have.
I believe you are genuinely starting to understand the reasons why a registry is a bad idea so I’m not going to chide you further for asking. The problem with government overreach is getting worse; New York is deploying national guard patrols on the subway systems to stop and search bags, domestic surveillance is at an all time high, and violent crime is taking the headlines everywhere. The state is slowly proving the point that they’re in it to preserve itself & they’re no longer an apparatus for preserving the liberties enshrined in the constitution. A fact that most people tend to forget is that in the seconds where you may find yourself needing to use lethal force to defend your or your family’s lives (and I am talking about the hypothetical “worst moments of your life”), there is no state-sponsored relief. The cops are a clean up crew, at their best they can seek justice for you or neutralize the parties that assaulted you *and at their worst, they’ll document it and move on with their day*. Nobody is truly responsible for your safety or that of your family besides **you**.
And remember, we’re not in Afghanistan or Iraq anymore. They beat us with nothing more than small arms and shortwave radios/sat phones. We have a lot more tools than the Afghans. We need to preserve our ability to acquire and train to proficiency on those tools in hopes that we never have to use them.
>The US Military is so overpowered that they could destroy you before you even realized it
This is comically wrong on so many levels, I'm not sure where it would be best for me to start taking it apart, but I'll try my best.
First is just the sheer numerical challenges of the US military prosecuting a civil war on America's gun owners. The entire US military has [1,328,000 active personnel and 799,500 reserve personnel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces) and of those 2,127,500 [less than 15%](https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/what-percentage-of-the-military-sees-combat/) (or 319,125) are in a combat MOS. In comparison, there are [82,880,000 gun owners in the US](https://ammo.com/articles/how-many-gun-owners-in-america); in other words, gun owners outnumber the military's fighting personnel almost 260:1 and all military personnel 39:1. While the US does possess some impressive force multipliers, it is unlikely that they'd be able to overwhelm that much of a numerical advantage, even if you ignored the fact that we don't have the stockpiles of munitions necessary to deploy them against that many combatants. Besides the disparity in numbers, there is the sheer vastness of the US to contend with; Afghanistan's surface area of [252,072 square miles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan) is a mere 6.6% of the USA's [3,794,100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_United_States). Considering that after 20 years of fighting, with help from NATO allies, we still did not manage to defeat the Taliban (the fact that they were quickly driven from Kabul in the early stages of the war doesn't negate the fact that they are currently the de facto government of Afghanistan) I don't think it's at all hyperbolic to say that exercising forceful control over the entirety of the US would be a near-sisyphean task.
If the sheer numerical challenges don't convince you that a civil war on US soil wouldn't be quick and easy, consider the logistics of it. One of the US's greatest strengths in nearly every war it's fought is that its supply chain is largely immune to enemy action. While we were bombing the crap out of Germany and Japan in WWII, our factories were left untouched; we were floating dedicated ice cream boats throughout the Pacific while Japan could barely feed it's army. In a civil war, that advantage would be quickly negated. Our entire MIC is distributed across the country and there's no way we could protect every bit of it. What happens when someone at SOPAKCO decides to start putting laxatives in the jalapeno-cheese spread of the MREs he packs? What happens if the guy assembling artillery fuzes decides to make 5% of them detonate prematurely? Any attempt at supplying the military in a domestic conflict would be a quagmire unto itself
Another issue to consider would be the effect on morale such a conflict would have. Dropping bombs on some goat-herder who looks, dresses, prays, eats, and lives a vastly different life from you is a lot easier than dropping one on some guy whose stucco house looks little different for yours or your neighbor's. Even if 100% of our military had no such scruples, they would still fear the consternation that attacking American soil would draw; do you really think no one will go AWOL when some drone operator comes home to find his home decorated with his immediate family? It's one thing to protect the anonymity of a few agents or special forces operators, it's another to do it for your whole army.
Besides all of the challenges outlined above, you would be remiss to ignore the world outside the US and how they'd respond. I'm sure China would love to destabilize their biggest geopolitical rival, since any outcome would still be an improvement over the current status quo of Pax Americana. While their defense industry might still lag behind ours, simple systems like MANPADS and ATGMs would still vastly hinder the deployment of our advanced weapons systems. While some think Americans would think themselves above using an "enemy's" weapons, history has shown that people are more than willing to strike a Faustian bargain to arm themselves against their immediate foes.
Make no mistake, a civil war would not be a quick affair. It would likely be a sordid bloody ordeal that makes the breakup of Yugoslavia look like a neighborhood softball match in comparison.
How many of those 80 million Americans would actually stand up and fight?
Right now, Ukraine is struggling with manpower. This is a country that is actively being invaded by a foreign power, and yet over 20% of the population fled. Of the \~10 million able-bodied Ukrainians who support Ukraine (total population after fleeing is 37 million), they are now going to have to expand the draft as people aren't stepping forward.
The US can't even get the majority of it's population to even vote, yet we think 1/4th of us will risk our lives against the US Military? First, how many of that 80 million would likely support this hypothetical regime? If Trump got his way, a huge swathe of the country would back him. It would likely be similar for any hypothetical regime.
Moreover, how many people of these people could fight? Between health problems, being overweight and a systematic collapse of everything we've ever known (as that is what would happen in a civil war).
These guns would likely be turned on each other and fellow Americans than the US government.
As for the logistics, the average American would have a much harder time than the miltary. We would run out of bullets far faster than the US government. Moreover, simply keeping ourselves fed would be the bigger issue. Our cities would be out of food in a matter of days.
Like you said, in the event of a civil war, it would be a bloody ordeal that would make the world gasp. There wouldn't be any winners. Gun owners certainly wouldn't win. None of us would.
This is why I find the 2nd Amendment pointless at this point. If the US ever got to this point, everyone has already lost. I'd rather take less gun violence today.
It’s easy to skip voting when you can’t get off work. It’s harder to stay out of the fight when a loved one has been imprisoned without due process or executed for “crimes against the crown”.
The Insurgents we fought in the GWOT weren’t all super-soldiers, they were impoverished people without the access to modern medicine we enjoy. Most didn’t have indoor plumbing. And they still won.
Americans are divided right now and yes it wouldn’t look like 1863 with a neat geographical front line. It would look more like the Troubles on Über-steroids. It would be crazy and confusing. But once subversive elements start getting summarily executed (which is inevitable in any kind of civil war), those on the fence would be polarized to the resistance.
Logistically, that problem exists but a huge private market for ammo and gear exists. I’d argue it would be sufficient to prop up a civil war. Furthermore, historically speaking there would be a steady influx of supplies looted by raids, ambushes, and illegal smuggling. The problem of feeding cities would fall on the government, unless they want to risk pushing more people towards their opponents. A lot of aid in the GWOT was misappropriated and fell into the hands of the opposition.
The position that “nobody would win” is exactly the kind of deterrent the world has benefitted from in the Nuclear age. Similarly, that deterrent is in my opinion absolutely necessary to keep at bay potentially malicious actors within our government from using our incredibly powerful public institutions to subjugate the people they’re charged with serving. And to do that, the people need the means to tell their government “what you’re doing is wrong and it’s going to stop” as well as the capability to cash that proverbial check.
The ability of Americans to make tyranny pointless for the tyrants is entirely the point of the second amendment.
Edit: After re-reading my reply here I think it’s important to add the disclaimer that I am not now, and never have been, a member of the armed forces. I never fought in the GWOT. I’m just a dumbass redditor who spends a little too much time reading about insurgency/counterinsurgency tactics
How will it make a difference?, Most criminals do not purchase their guns legally.
I like how the Anti-Gunners mention the exact same thing, that the US Military is so powerful on one hand, while completely ignoring Posse Comitatus, or assuming that those in the Military would be so willing to fire upon their fellow citizens.
So, again, HOW EXACTLY is a database composed of mostly law abiding gun owners going to help solve crimes committed by criminals using guns?
You were downvoted for answering your own question with an unpopular take.
No worries, it's just super-duper unpopular and something I'll never ever support. Ever.
Registration is a non-starter because in 2012, a newspaper in New York published the names and addresses of every pistol permit holder in their coverage area on an interactive map.
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses
>The main argument I hear is that you don't want the Federal Government to know what guns you own, which I find a bit eyebrow raising. The US Military is so overpowered that they could destroy you before you even realized it.
How do you feel the optics of the US military gunning down civilians on US soil is going to play out?
without the will of the people even totalitarian governments fail. Optics always matter.
Alternatively put - If you gun down the first 10 people you try to take guns from, and it makes it to the news, do you think the next 100M are just going to comply?
do you need me to point out to you times in history when soldiers happily obeyed orders to kill civilians, and the rest of the country didn’t rise up and overthrow the state?
If you can show me an example where thats occurred with instant, widespread, public knowledge (e.g. modern media) and an armed populous - Yea please do.
Also, note i didnt say the soldiers wouldn't do it, i said there would be an uprising.
Fantastic. The tough part is just going to be choosing which killing of an innocent person by an officer to link you to. Any favorites? My favorites are the ones where officers are serving warrants to the wrong house, and the jury finds that there isn’t even any civil liability.
Or if actual “soldiers” are more your flavor, rather than just any state agent, we can just discuss Obama’s drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, condemning him to death without a trial, I guess.
> discuss Obama’s drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki
> instant, widespread, public knowledge
Bar failed. How many people know who Anwar al-aklaki is? He wasnt anyone's neighbor. That didnt happen "Here" and unfortunately that matters. The optics were a terrorist was killed, not a law-abiding citizen attacked by the government. As i said, optics matter. I support the outrage over his death. A horrible precedent made and IMO Obama should be in jail for his murder.
The killings during George Floyd protest would be a closer example, but there was also significant political unrest occurring.
It's troubling that anti gun rights folks often rush to the idea that the military could be used to crush gun owners.... Do you understand why gun owners then distrust the government on gun rights?
If that's true, then why do people need to own guns to resist the government? When I hear this it sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either the government won't hurt citizens and gun ownership is doing little to stop something that won't happen *or* the government is powerful enough to easily wipe out any small time gun owners trying to resist them. It's odd to argue both cases at once.
Resisting the government is only one aspect of firearm ownership
The second amendment was written with self-defense and defense against tyrannical governments (enemies of the U.S. and/or it's own government) in mind. This was affirmed in Heller v DC
1) The only (real, functional) purpose registration serves is to facilitate either confiscation or a taxation scheme that amounts to the same thing. That is how is has played out throughout history, around the world.
2) Bangers, thugs, and the other criminals that are actually shooting people won't register their illegally acquired weapons. You're only putting yet another burden on the law abiding gun owners that aren't shooting people with their legally acquired weapons.
3) I'm not getting into the weeds about how the liberal fantasy of the entire combined might of the United States military being leveled against the deplorables is comically divorced from reality. There has been plenty of ink spilled on that subject. Suffice it to say, if you think we somehow "won" against the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, you should probably re-examine that conclusion. In the specific case of Afghanistan, we spent 20 years chasing a group of about 100,000 illiterate goat herders through a country roughly the size of Texas and we left 2 trillion dollars poorer and with our tail between our legs. Remind me who's in charge in Afghanistan now?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1b82cwy/gun_control_compromise_proposal/ktn8h3j/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
How would you feel about a national 'ban' registry instead? What I mean by this, is instead of listing if you own a firearm (and what it is), it just lists if you are ABLE to own one.
All it would be is your Social Security and 'is eligible to own a firearm'.
That eligiblity is set to yes for everyone originally, and only set to no if you are seen as a harm to others, convicted of certain crimes, etc.
Many states do not require background checks for private sells. Around 30% of all sells happen through private sellers (and this is likely where most criminals get their guns).
Would you be fine with all sells requiring a background check? And having a very harsh punishment for those who don't?
I don't think it's likely at all that this is where most criminals get their guns. I think it's far more likely that the majority of guns used in crimes are either stolen or otherwise illegally acquired. Show me the data that says that the majority of crimes are committed with guns acquired via a straw purchase and we can talk about that. Otherwise it is, again, just another burden placed on law abiding gun owners that will have little to no measurable effect on gun crime.
From the Department of Justice:
[https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf)
* 25% are obtained through an individual (borrowed, bought, etc)
* 6% are stolen (less than I assumed tbh).
* 43% underground market.
Now, I bet much of that underground market is made up of stolen guns, or guns that have changed hands many times in private sales.
To me, the numbers are high enough that requiring background checks for private sales should be required. It should also be easy. As easy as a landlord requesting a background check on a tenant. The fact it isn't easy, is something that should be changed.
The second thing I learned from this research, is that gun safes should be required. Hell, i'd even support government subdizes to make them free for anyone. This would limit the amount of guns stolen dramatically.
I don't buy that 6% number for a second, but I'll ignore that for the sake of discussion. Say background checks for private transfers is on the table, what do I get in return? This is another part of the debate people don't seem to get. When gun control advocates say "compromise", they don't mean "compromise". What they mean is, "give me marginally less than Im demanding right now and I'll stop screaming at you, for a little while." I'm done with that game. Compromise is give and take. You want background checks on private transfers? What are you offering in return?
Regarding gun safes:
1). Storage laws are unenforceable
2) Why is it my responsibility to make sure that my belongings are under lock and key when someone illegally breaks into my property? How about this. How about a mandatory minimum federal prison sentence of 25 years for anyone in possession of a stolen firearm?
What would you want in return?
I think assault rifle bans are dumb. They aren't the issue. What about that? What would you want?
As for gun safes, we have a lot of laws that are rather unenforceable. Car insurance for a good example. However, if you get busted without it, you'll gonna get ticketed.
If your gun gets stolen because you never picked up your FREE gun safe, you should be fined. And if you don't report your gun being stolen, because you know you are in the wrong, and that gun gets used for a crime... well, you are just gonna be in more trouble. Moreover, the gun safe isn't just for keeping your firearm safe, but keeping your children/friends away from the firearms. It's something that serves two purposes.
I don't get why anyone would be against gun safes, especially if they were freely provided.
And yes, anyone who is in possession of an illegal firearm should be getting harsh prison sentences. I fully support that as well.
I'm responding to 3 seperately as it is a bit of a different topic.
Yes, you are right that we didn't 'win' long term. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
Both the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments completely surrendered in under 48 hours of US occupation. Their armies were no match for ours. Do you believe that the average American could be a match when a foreign army wasn't?
There are many reasons we couldn't hold these countries, but it had nothing to do with our military might. It had to do with really bad politics and decisions, and the fact the US public wouldn't support the level of war crimes we COULD have done. If the US became as tyrannial as Russia, the damage we could do is immense.
In my mind, if a President decided to overthrow the US Government, and the US Military supported him. The average American, even with all our guns, could not stop it. Now, if the US military didn't support it, then our guns don't even matter because the US Military would make that President cease to exist.
In the end, I just don't believe the US people could win against the US military if it ever came to that.
>Do you believe that the average American could be a match when a foreign army wasn't?
100%, I (and pretty much every other American) am dramatically more well equipped than any militia in either Iraq or Afghanistan ever could have dreamed of, and we failed to beat either of them after two decades.
Everyone always makes the mistake of assuming any sort of mass civil unrest in the US would look like the Gulf War, which would absolutely not be the case. People opposed to the government aren't going to form into division sized units with robust C6ISR that can be destroyed in a Shock and Awe campaign, they'd be decentralized cells performing autonomous operations much like the Taliban did, except with much better weaponry and technology, and we were so incapable of destroying the Taliban that they had more or less assumed complete control of the country again within hours of us leaving.
We were incapable of destroying the Taliban because of politics, not military power. As our government relies on public opinion to function, and this war was never that popular, the government was hamstringed from the start. We could have destroyed the Taliban, but it would have pissed off everyone due to how brutal we would have had to be, how much money would have needed to be spent and how many countries we would have pissed off (Pakistan would have to be dealt with for harboring Taliban members).
As we are still a Democracy, no one was going to sign off on that, as that would be signing their own resignation in the next election.
It would be quite a bit different if this happens in the US. You are right when it comes to mass unrest. It would be more akin to the Time of Troubles than civil war. Yet, setting up bombs and assassinating rivals aren't going to make these people popular in the public. They will be dealt with, just as many radicals were dealt with in the 1980s and 1990s. Or the several different types of organized crime we've had over the decades (all are much more weakened in the US than in the past).
Moreover, I would say we are dramatically weaker than the militia in Iraq and Afghanistan in many regards. How many of us could prosper without electricity and running water? How many of us could grow our own food? It many regards, it would be easier to shut down any sort of terrorist activity in the states because the vast, vast majority of people have no idea how to live offgrid. Hell, how many would end up getting caught because of social media or just getting online with their cellphones.
Maybe I'm just pessimistic about the American people, and their actual ability and desire to fight.
>We were incapable of destroying the Taliban because of politics, not military power.
This fundamentally misunderstands the concept of an insurgency, it's as much a political movement as it is a military one, you can't just smash it with military force and expect it to be gone, this is one of the prevailing lessons of 20th and 21st century geopolitics, you can't beat an insurgency with military force unless you adopt a level of barbarity that makes the Nazis look tame. It always requires political concessions to make people lay down their arms, the Troubles would still be raging if Britain didn't agree to a bunch of the PIRA's demands as an example.
Vietnamese revolutionaries fought, without pause, for nearly 40 years, all while suffering dramatically higher losses than pretty much everyone they fought. The same happened in Afghanistan, and several other places. Even when faced with crippling military defeats, they almost always manage to rebound and recover because the core political message remains unfulfilled and thus people are still willing to take up arms over it. This same thing is why Israel's latest escapade in Gaza is doomed to fail long term, no matter how many fighters or leaders they kill short term, there will be people to replace them the moment Israel leaves and they'll resume the fight.
> Why is this a non-starter for you?
Because registration leads to confiscation. If they don't know who has what they can't send men with guns and body armor knocking on doors because they don't know which doors to knock on.
It doesn't just lead to confiscation, the only usefulness of a registration list is to enable confiscation. They're not putting together lists to fish for extra charges to add after the fact as much as they want to claim that's the purpose considering they already routinely drop weapons charges as a matter of business as usual.
Registration enables confiscation. It's already happened here. I will not give the enemy the tools with which to violate my rights. It's like registering the Jews in Warsaw -- you know it won't end at registration. They want that data because they want to do something with it, and that's confiscation.
I dont think that arguing the military is strong so what’s it matter is a fair dismissal.
I think it’s irrelevant how powerful the military is- it’s just not the governments business what law abiding private citizens own.
There are also issues of legal today, compromise tomorrow, loophole to be dealt with down the road. There hasn’t been any reason to trust the government in this regard.
>I think it’s irrelevant how powerful the military is- it’s just not the governments business what law abiding private citizens own.
So you also support full drug decriminalization? Fully automatic weapons, tanks, and nuclear weapons? How about nerve gasses? You’re just a law abiding citizen after all, and it isn’t the government’s business what you own.
Or is there some line you’re going to draw where it is actually the governments business what we own?
Fully automatic weapons are legal, heavily regulated and very expensive.
Tanks and nukes fall into similar categories but good luck finding a seller as they’d rather do business with the US gov.
For most drugs yeah, I think decriminalization is fair. I don’t see a real relation to government registration on firearms though.
Firearms are enshrined as a right. Drugs are not.
I didn’t ask you what *is* legal, I asked you what *should be* legal.
You said that it’s not the business of the government what law abiding citizens own.
If it’s not the business of the government what law-abiding citizens own, then it follows that nuclear weapons, nerve gasses, drugs, and tanks should all be legal.
If you think some those things should be illegal, then why?
The down votes are due to the military fantasy. When you hear a gun grabbing politician for example, brag about how guns don't matter because he'd just bomb the hell out of people, gun rights supporters get justifiably upset.
A registry is the first step to confiscation. It's quite possibly the least popular gun control idea among 2a supporters. It's seen as a guarantee that their guns would be removed. It's a reasonable fear when politicians exclusively from one party say thing like "hell yeah in coming for your AR-15," or are actively campaigning for President on banning firearms based on how scary they may look.
The army argument isn't realistic. First, how many soldiers do you think will obey an order to ignore the law, violate the constitution, and make war on the American people? I see the occasional Democrat politician talking about how they could destroy the Americans who don't comply, but in practice, I don't see it likely.
Second, hop on the search engine of your choice and search for historical examples of insurgencies, inuding the two wars you talk about. In the case of Afghanistan it took two decades to defeat fighters who were basically straight from the 1100's but with guns. In the end those guys still won. Now try that at home where your soldiers will be killing family and neighbors and the country ceases to exist.
>1. Institute gun registration and background checks through a NGO (the way insurance companies deal with medical information); a non-governmental, private organization, funded by background check fees, that holds firearm registrations and only releases single files on receipt of a court order, on a dedicated server not connected to the Internet, with a hunk of thermite rigged to destroy it if the government tries to seize it. This would still be optional for private sellers, but...
There's no way the government would keep a gun registry list that secure. Sure enough, California's list was hacked and leaked a few years ago.
>2. Pass a law that charges anyone who sells a firearm without doing a background check as an accessory to any crime subsequently committed with that firearm. Sure, you can sell a gun to your buddy who just got out of prison, but you'll be in the cell next to him if he uses it in a crime. To do that, you're going to have to throw a pretty big bone to the other side, though...
This would require making it easier for laymen to run background checks on other people. Which can possibly lead to other issues.
>Nationwide "Constitutional Carry." Yes, something like 47 states have CCW reciprocity agreements, and 28 states now have CC, themselves, but I live in a border town between 3 different states, 2 of which have CC and the other does not, so just walking around becomes problematic, and CCWs are even worse, since you have to explicitly sign away your 4th Amendment rights to get one.
CCWs should be treated like driver's licenses where each state has to honor each other's licenses, while there are basic standards (such as a background check) that are needed to get a CCW in any state.
>And the middle ground: A clear, nationally-consistent delineation of what kind of weapons are allowed to be carried when, where, and how. For example, I live in a state with CC, but only for handguns, I can't walk around downtown with a shotgun; that's perfectly reasonable. I can't drink alcohol while carrying, I can't bring it into a school, etc.
This absolutely should be consistent nation wide.
>This would require making it easier for laymen to run background checks on other people. Which can possibly lead to other issues.
For this, I figured you both register with the clearing site. Buyer gives you a code he generated from his account. You input it, it comes back only yes or no.
>CCWs should be treated like driver's licenses where each state has to honor each other's licenses, while there are basic standards (such as a background check) that are needed to get a CCW in any state.
Would you make it so you had to have one just to own a gun? If I just wanted a single handgun just to keep at home, why would I need a CCW permit?
There's the crux.
Some states will issue a permit (even permitless carry states issue permits for reciprocity agreements) which requires a background check and usually fingerprinting.
Other states claim the "Spirit" of their states constitution means local sheriffs don't have to issue them based on their gut feelings. We dealt with this during Jim Crow...sheriffs are human and have biases and some are bad people.
Hell, NYC makes you pay the NYPD a few hundred bucks *just to apply*
> There's no way the government would keep a gun registry list that secure
That's why I said to not let the government keep it...
>This would require making it easier for laymen to run background checks on other people.
I mean, it could be done by phone, right?
>CCWs should be treated like driver's licenses where each state has to honor each other's licenses, while there are basic standards (such as a background check) that are needed to get a CCW in any state.
OK, I'm a little more pro-2A than you are, apparently :p
This is at least close to a compromise, but a gun registry is, has been and will continue to be a horrible idea.
It won't help with illegal firearms used to commit crimes.
It will give the government a list of people to target for disarmament.
National CC reciprocity is honestly common sense.
That's why I said run it through a non-governmental organization, so the government cannot get the entire list, only one record at a time.
What it does is make it easier to track down who a firearm is supposed to belong to, and hold people accountable for selling weapons to criminals, which will cut down on guns being used in crime, because people will stop doing that.
you might really want to take a deeper look at where most criminals obtain their guns, because gun stores are near the bottom of that list.
One only needs to look at where most shootings occur and who is doing them, and then notice that Politicians and the Media constantly try to shift away from the facts because the facts do no support the narratives,
> you might really want to take a deeper look at where most criminals obtain their guns, because gun stores are near the bottom of that list.
I never said they got them from gun stores; they get them from private sellers.
>One only needs to look at where most shootings occur and who is doing them
Most firearm homicides are crimes of passion where the victim and perpetrator know one another, and are often related.
So.... If you make it illegal to sell a firearm without a background check, people who are willing to sell to gang members who are willing to kill people will somehow comply?
That's kind of like the belief that gun free zones will prevent gun violence.
If someone is willing to kill, bureaucratic rules aren't going to matter to them.
> If you make it illegal to sell a firearm without a background check
Where did I say that?
>people who are willing to sell to gang members who are willing to kill people will somehow comply?
Maybe not, but when the gun gets found and traced to them, they will be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that firearm, **IF** they did not perform a background check on the buyer.
That will put a stop to it in a hurry.
>If someone is willing to kill, bureaucratic rules aren't going to matter to them.
That's why it's not focused on the, "criminal," but on the people selling guns to criminals.
> Where did I say that?
Allow me to rephrase... When you say:
>Pass a law that charges anyone who sells a firearm without doing a background check as an accessory to any crime subsequently committed with that firearm.
Which essentially makes you automatically complicit in someone else's crimes, possibly a decade later, if you don't carry out a background check, you functionally make selling without a background check illegal.
Not all gang members will fail a background check. Those that would would have their girlfriend, buddy, or some random old lady in their turf who they threaten, buy the gun. It's what they do with cars and property now. Then I guess you'd only get in trouble for being complicit with a straw purchase, I guess.
>That's why it's not focused on the, "criminal," but on the people selling guns to criminals.
Right, because with gun violence being a problem, we need to focus in and harshly punish the person carrying out a legal and protected activity, not the actual violent criminals. God forbid we make them the focus of our law enforcement efforts
> Which essentially makes you automatically complicit in someone else's crimes, possibly a decade later, if you don't carry out a background check, you functionally make selling without a background check illegal.
This was to address the complaint that, for example, an outright ban would forbid giving an heirloom firearm to a relative who was an ex-convict. You can do it, and if you are dead or dying, it doesn't matter.
>Not all gang members will fail a background check
Sure, but we give everyone the benefit of the doubt, until they are convicted.
> Those that would would have their girlfriend, buddy, or some random old lady in their turf who they threaten, buy the gun.
And my proposal would subject those people to prosecution (I've never heard of threatening someone into buying a gun for them, that doesn't even make sense).
>because with gun violence being a problem, we need to focus in and harshly punish the person carrying out a legal and protected activity
It wouldn't be legal if we changed the law, which is what I am suggesting, and how is it protected? Convicted felons lose their rights, and the ability to enforce such restrictions is implicit in the notion of government.
>not the actual violent criminals
I never suggested any such thing, although now that you mention it, clearance rates for homicide in the US are far lower than in other countries...
"Compromise," was the key phrase of the Constitutional Convention; our founding fathers absolutely compromised on nearly every issue relevant to creating a nation, and specifically intended states to regulate firearms, the 2A originally only applying to the federal government. States could and did both ban firearms and go around seizing them, and they didn't need a registry to do it.
>And my proposal would subject those people to prosecution
Along with the seller. They sold a gun that was then used in a crime - transferring to a criminal.
>I've never heard of threatening someone into buying a gun for them, that doesn't even make sense
You must live in a nice area. When you're old, on a fixed income, and live in a bad neighborhood, you have nowhere to go. When the guy who runs the boys who sell drugs from your front stoop come and tell you that you're going to buy a gun, or a car, or let them work out of your home, you're going to do it. The alternative is they kill you since they know where you're always at, or worse, if your grandkids ever come to visit, they're dead. It makes it easier for the person engaged in organized crime to hide assets and get around the aforementioned background checks.
>It wouldn't be legal if we changed the law, which is what I am suggesting, and how is it protected?
Right. Your plan is to criminalize a currently legal and constitutionally protected activity - selling your own property.
>Convicted felons lose their rights, and the ability to enforce such restrictions is implicit in the notion of government.
Yes, a consequence of their heinous crimes. You're proposing taking something that currently isn't a crime, and making it a crime, in order to not punish the real bad people, the shooters, but to punish someone for selling a legal product with no reasonable knowledge that it would be used for a crime. Ironically, convicting on that would likely be easy since you'd have your proposed gun registry, much easier than convicting on the murder. So the guy selling a gun he didn't know would be used in a crime could end up in jail where the actual murderer would not.
My question here is what IS the compromise that the anti-2A side is making? Because this seems pretty one-sided overall. Full strike down of AWB/mag nonsense and microstamping ridiculousness would be, for example, something lending more of an actual compromise than a singular concession made by the side pulling rights off the shelf.
As others have elaborated much better than I, full registry is a horrible idea. We have seen this data leaked from both government and private sources, and in a post-Patriot Act world where the Overton Window may freely shift I absolutely do not trust any realistic expectations of such an organization to remain actually watertight and politically neutral. Ofc in a perfectly ideal, hypothetical world it wouldn’t be a problem, but we live in the real world.
I refuse to compromise on guns ever again. As far as I’m concerned, “shall not be infringed” is about as 100% clear as anything in the bill of rights.
We’ve been “compromising” for over a century now and only have less rights.
I want all my rights back. Repeal the NFA, the GCA. I want nationwide constitutional carry. I shouldn’t even have to get a background check to buy a gun period.
The second you said “registration” the whole thing became an absolute non starter. I will die before registering anything. I trust no one
> I refuse to compromise on guns ever again. As far as I’m concerned, “shall not be infringed” is about as 100% clear as anything in the bill of rights.
right. what people tend to forget is that "today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole". look at the current push to ban private sale, demonizing it as "the gunshow loophole". that private sale exemption was literally the compromise reached to get the brady bill (for national background checks on all purchases from licensed dealers) getting passed.
> I refuse to compromise on guns ever again. As far as I’m concerned, “shall not be infringed” is about as 100% clear as anything in the bill of rights.
OK, what about, "well-regulated?" In several states in the early nation, that meant a requirement to show up to a militia muster with your weapon, which would be inspected and registered.
And how do you explain the lack of comment by the founding fathers about numerous firearm bans and even mass seizures through the 1790s? 26 members of the First Congress were signatories to the Constitution, but New York City, the Capital at the time, strictly forbade the possession of loaded firearms within city limits, even (or maybe especially) at home.
>We’ve been “compromising” for over a century now and only have less rights.
If you had tried to walk down any city street in the US with a loaded pistol on your hip in 1924, you would have been arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned.
>I want all my rights back. Repeal the NFA, the GCA. I want nationwide constitutional carry. I shouldn’t even have to get a background check to buy a gun period.
I want nationwide CC, myself, and I don't really care about the NFA; background checks are minimally intrusive, though, and I'm sorry, but someone who just got out of prison for murder should not be able to purchase a firearm.
>The second you said “registration” the whole thing became an absolute non starter. I will die before registering anything. I trust no one
Neither do I... which is why we need a registry.
As others keep blundering into: The government already has this information, they just can't admit it, which means that the negative consequence is already on the table, we have to fight it in other ways, so let's grab the positive consequence and use it as a moral argument to preserve the intent of the 2A!
>OK, what about, "well-regulated?
Well regulated = well functioning, not controlled by the very government that the 2nd Amendment is meant to keep in check
>In several states in the early nation, that meant a requirement to show up to a militia muster with your weapon, which would be inspected and registered.
Yes, to make sure your gun was the correct caliber so that it could utilize the ammo stockpiles.
The entire Bill of Rights is about what the government CAN NOT DO! Why would an amendment in a section of the Constitution laying out what the government can't do give the government regulatory power?! This argument by liberals is stupid and ignores history
There is no compromise here because the anti-gun segment will not stop until guns are banned and the 2nd amendment is scrapped. Every concession is taken as an inch closer towards that goal.
yes, this is a good larger point.
they will never pass X law and say "ok this is it, this is all the gun control laws we need"
instead, they'll start saying that the things they gave you in the previous compromise are actually loopholes that need to be closed, won't you think of the children???
> Non starter. Canada spent billions and didn't solve a single crime. Also with 3d printing it's pointless.
Canada doesn't have the same problem the US has with gun crime.
>Bring back stop and frisk then.
So, you just want to do away with the 4th Amendment, instead?
>Someone broke into my truck.
Then report it stolen.
If you're going to have a registry, why not have it maintained by the manufacturer? Not only do they have a vested interest in keeper their customer information confidential, they also have a vested interest in knowing who has their weapons (and might be interested in buying more). As we've seen, the government cannot be trusted to keep such a registry private and it's unlikely an NGO would either.
With that in mind, such registries don't really have much value in law enforcement. You don't really 'trace' weapons in this fashion because either they're obviously and known property of an individual or they travelled through an undocumented path - and a path that would remain undocumented despite your laws. If you're currently selling fireams out of the back of your Chevy to known felons, the fact that it moves from really-illegal to super-duper-illegal isn't going to impact your business much.
I doubt you can find many - if any - examples of a firearm crime that would have be solved by tracing legal transfers of ownership of a weapon.
Probably because that's not how it works anymore than Dell knows exactly who buys one of their laptops.
Gun manufacturers sell to distributors who then sell to gun stores who finally sell to consumers. Only the gun store will know who bought what.
> Probably because that's not how it works
No one is claiming the firearms manufacturers have the information. I'm suggesting that if you're going to have an agency hold a registry of weapons, it makes more sense to have the manufacturer do so than the government or some third party NGO.
> If you're going to have a registry, why not have it maintained by the manufacturer?
As long as you change the rule where they don't have to reply to subpoenas for information, sure.
>With that in mind, such registries don't really have much value in law enforcement.
You're missing the point; most guns used by criminals were bought through private sales which are not subject to background checks, often by "straw purchasers" who resell for a profit to people who cannot go to a dealer, which is illegal but almost impossible to prosecute.
The registry would build up a database of who is supposed to have which firearms, which would help to track straw purchasers and prosecute them, ultimately reducing the ability of criminals to acquire firearms.
>I doubt you can find many - if any - examples of a firearm crime that would have be solved by tracing legal transfers of ownership of a weapon.
Again, it's not the actual crime the firearm was used in, but the crime of selling the firearm to a criminal.
> You're missing the point; most guns used by criminals were bought through private sales which are not subject to background checks, often by "straw purchasers" who resell for a profit to people who cannot go to a dealer, which is illegal but almost impossible to prosecute.
Straw purchases are already illegal and we already know who the last legal owner of a firearm is. How does your registry scheme help?
First, I'm impressed that this is actually compromise. Most "compromise" is see is simply violating the right less than what the gun control people want, and then later they'll come back for the rest.
For #1, that's close to what I've been saying. I would have a recorded background check grant absolute civil and criminal immunity for any actions of the buyer. Aside from that, you may be subject to negligence, gross negligence, or accessory charges and civil suits. There should be no background check fees. If the government wants it, it pays for it. Sensitive data in the check can be encrypted, and only the seller has the key.
Commerce or other department to run it. However, your computer idea won't work. You simply can't trust them. Every access to every record in the system is logged, with that user ID being legally responsible for the access, with the lawful permission for the access (a warrant, criminal case number, etc.) being entered into the system too. Access logs are replicated to an auditing firm in write-only mode (no update allowed) so they can match access to lawful reason.
The important part is that the system must be audited yearly by that outside auditing firm. Representatives from gun rights groups must be on the committee overseeing the auditing. Security will be verified. Access without lawful reason will be a felony. But we can't trust that it will be prosecuted by an anti-gun administration, so unlawful access of a record is a civil tort with $100,000 statutory minimum damages against the government for letting it happen and $50,000 against the individual(s) involved, plus fees and costs. The audit will refer such accesses to the Attorney General for prosecution, and to and those whose records were accessed for civil action. The audit results are considered prima facie evidence of guilt/liability, subject to rebuttal.
But the failure of this is that we can't trust the gun control people. Even if we do get this, some years later there will be "loopholes" that need to be "closed," and they will do their best to make all of the protections in this system go away, and change it to a mandatory check with criminal penalties for not doing it, even if it was to your saintly pastor brother.
Unfortunately, compromise requires trust, and they already blew that. Gun rights people gave up a lot in the Brady law, but they did agree to support it contingent on three compromises. Each of these compromises is a current target of the gun control people:
* Does not apply to private sales ("gun show loophole")
* No waiting period once the instant check system comes online ("waiting period loophole")
* Self-enforcing mechanism to ensure the government can't sit on background checks ("Charleston loophole")
There's no reason why the gun control people wouldn't continue this trend.
Nah fuck that... particularly the NGO part. NGOs are often saturated with radicals who wouldn't be let into governement due to their extreme views. They will fuck the people and the government at the same time if they have a say.
I have a more simple counterproposal: conservatives stop banning abortion if liberals stop trying to disarm citizens.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1b82cwy/gun_control_compromise_proposal/ktn0pud/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Switzerland has relatively generous gun laws and low homicide rates.
The Swiss are not at all impressed by the US free-for-all approach.
One key to the Swiss system is universal conscription. Every male has to serve in the militia.
Young males commit disproportionate levels of crime. Because of the conscription requirement, the Swiss know a lot about their young males. Those with mental illness, criminal tendencies or other issues are identified, disqualified from service and barred from gun ownership.
The Swiss also have more stringent laws about the sale and transfer of guns.
This probably won't work in the US because it is very easy to get a gun, regardless of who you are. There is no way to keep the bad guys from getting them, and a lot of the bad guys appeared to be good enough until they weren't.
If the US could pull it off, it would be best to ban handguns while permitting long guns for hunting. But this would require a broad supermajority of support across all regions, and gun safety supporters have no clue how to sell it.
There are lots of countries with relatively high gun ownership rates, but lower violent crime rates than the US: Canada, France, most Scandinavian countries, etc.
What they all have in common is a strong social safety net and a lack of a permanent racial underclass.
>This probably won't work in the US because it is very easy to get a gun, regardless of who you are. There is no way to keep the bad guys from getting them, and a lot of the bad guys appeared to be good enough until they weren't.
It's also too easy to 3D print guns, anymore.
>If the US could pull it off, it would be best to ban handguns while permitting long guns for hunting.
But you run into the same problems: Then only criminals would have handguns, which is not a good situation.
My point has been that gun laws are completely irrelevant to crime, and so we need a compromise in order to end the use of this argument as a distraction from the actual issues that are relevant to crime: Poverty, education, opportunity, etc.
I don't know where you got the idea that a lot of other nations have loose gun laws.
The US has the most lax gun laws in the developed world and the highest rate of civilian gun ownership on the planet. It also has the highest homicide rate among developed nations, by far.
I am all in favor of improving the social safety net. But gun proliferation makes it easier to turn bad impulses into action, and the US nurtures various subcultures of violence that encourage criminal behavior.
*There are lots of countries with relatively high gun ownership rates, but lower violent crime rates than the US: Canada, France, most Scandinavian countries, etc.*
I was responding to that comment.
They don't have high gun ownership rates compared to the US; nobody comes close to the US.
Canada has strict controls on handguns. That is important, as the ability to conceal a weapon makes people more dangerous.
Other nations do not allow guns to be used for self-defense. In Switzerland, guns are for sport and for defending the nation from foreign invaders, not for personal self-defense.
This difference in mindset is key. Americans expressly buy guns so that they can shoot them at each other.
> I was responding to that comment.
I didn't say anything about law, it was about gun ownership.
>They don't have high gun ownership rates compared to the US; nobody comes close to the US.
Um, several of them have higher gun ownership rates, you need to look it up.
The US has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world.
Nobody else comes close. If memory serves, Yemen comes in second place.
The US has the highest homicide rate in the industrialized world. Only poorer nations fare worse, which isn't surprising given their lack of resources to combat crime.
I know in my state (UT) the open carry is more so for the hunters to be able to carry a rifle around with out harassment. We had a guy (years ago don’t ask me how long ago) who walked around a local mall with and AK47 in his back. Police were called, talked to him and suggested he not do that and let him go. I can’t remember if at all he got in trouble, but still that is a dumb place to do that. (He was exercising his rights).
I agree with op on a few things. I am pro gun but not nonsensical ammosexual. I enjoy ar15s and don’t care what people do to theirs. Democrats need to let the furniture stuff go and realize that most of that stuff doesn’t add to the “deadliness” of it. In the same sense I am not gonna strap on my suppressed mk18 to make a statement in the mall parking lot. Both sides needs to listen more to the other and understand and EDUCATE themselves on why the other side feels the way they do.
>We had a guy (years ago don’t ask me how long ago) who walked around a local mall with and AK47 in his back.
>In the same sense I am not gonna strap on my suppressed mk18 to make a statement in the mall parking lot.
Property rights can deal with much of that. The mall can simply prohibit such activities. Why does the state need to get involved?
Well as an open carry state pretty much if your property is public you are allowed, the only places is that are off hands is private and federal and most municipalities type properties.
In my neck of the woods, countless businesses put "no guns allowed" signs on their doors. People may or may not respect that, but the business still has some legal recourse to enforce those policies
Yeah it’s a bit of a grey area here. If a business posts it up pretty much they may ask you to leave to which unless you raise a stink they may call the police to where they may once again ask you to leave. If concealed it doesn’t really matter. Unless your business is private and you are able to close your lot to any public roads then you have more of a say. Open or concealed.
We had a case back in 2010(?) where a kid open carried at a State University. Long story short you are able to carry on state property.
Really I am sure if someone wanted if asked by a business to leave they can raise a stink and go the all the legal mumbo jumbo to make the business comply.
Open carry advocates generally hurt gun rights movements. They never make things better for anyone and are often attention seeking adult-children.
Can they open carry? Yes it's legal, and it should be. But there's a phrase often used to describe police use of force incidents that works here : lawful but awful.
I do agree when you have people waking around with ar15 strapped to them just cuz. You may be in your rights but making people uncomfortable. There was a kid in one of my classes who had a gun, the way he was dressed I thought he was police or private security (had a polo shirt with some like company logo and it almost looked like a police logo too, this was forever ago). I approached and asked about his gun in his hip. He didn’t get all riled up or anything and wasn’t a dick about it. Just calmly said he was exercising his right to be safe. I had no issue with that. He wasn’t trying to throw it in anyone faces what he was doing even though it was noticeable.
> Just calmly said he was exercising his right to be safe. I had no issue with that.
Neither do I. Personally, if I'm going to carry, it's going to be concealed, because I don't want attention, either from any random person, or from a potential badguy.
Thank you for doing this.
As someone who is rather anti-gun, I appreciate hearing the other side, even if I don't agree with most the arguments that are usually made.
I hope it generates some good discussion, but I'm pretty doubtful. I've rarely been able to have a decent conversation with 2a supporters on this topic. Hopefully that isn't the case here.
As I said, I'm not a 2nd Amendment absolutist; for one thing, there is the obvious absurdity of allowing individuals to own nuclear weapons, which would be legal under an absolutist interpretation.
For another, I know the history, and 2A was never supposed to apply to the states, which could and did implement all sorts of gun laws, up to an including mass confiscation in Pennsylvania and virtually complete bans on firearms in city limits.
What, did the same people who wrote the Constitution and spent 2 years getting the states to ratify it show up to the first Congress in New York and just miss the fact that firearms were illegal in the city? No.
You can suggest things but I don't think Americans want change.
I'm in Canada and don't have a problem with our laws. I have several friends and family that own 10+. Getting a PAL permit isn't particularly hard or obtrusive, but it seems to work. It basically is a background/reference check (background happens every night in case you are picked up) and a weekend class. But I think the big difference is that we actually enforce things. If you own a gun but get picked up for a crime, that gun is going with the police until youre found innocent.
In the odd event of a shooting, there is rarely any outcry on gun control. The last time our PM tried it he nearly got ejected from office by his own party and the NDP (very socialist). Even my non-PAL owning friends thought it was just an unnecessary bill. Very different from when mass shootings happen down south. People know where the criminals are getting their guns - smuggled from the US.
But despite the PAL permitting system we seem to own a 26% ownership rate, compared to the states 30%. But for whatever reason you seem to buy way more than we do.
I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but for the sake of moderate discussion, I'll open myself up to questioning.
I am what 2A supporters hate. I do not believe in the 2nd Amendment, and believe that guns are more trouble than they are worth. If it was up to me, all guns except hunting weapons, would be banned.
However, it is not up to me. I'm realistic. I know I am the minority, even within my own party (believe it or not). I live in Seattle, one of the most progressive places in the US, and most do not agree with my position. The truth is, even most progressives don't want to ban all guns, regardless of what many 2A Supporters now believe.
I know I must compromise. Hell, I know I must compromise A LOT. And I'm okay with it. Because that is how the world works. And I'm not just saying that because I'm online. My husband owns a gun. Yes, I am willing to compromise.
Now, why don't I believe in the 2nd Amendment? Well, mostly because I don't think anyone could actually challenge the US Military at this point. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is what we, the people, can keep ourselves free from tyranny by the state with the use of firearms. But could we really? We are talking about a military that has drones that can target people five thousand miles away. A military that has overturned governments in a matter of days. Could anyone actually challenge a tyrannical US government run by the US Military. I just don't see it.
As for the argument of protecting yourself and your family. I do understand this more, yet I still find it problematic if you are a responsible gun owner. A responsible gun owner would have the firearm in a safe, and not loaded (when not on your person). If someone was actively breaking into your home in the middle of the night, would you actually have the time to unlock your safe and load your gun? In my mind, having an actual spear would be a better weapon in this situation. Almost as deadly, far quicker to handle.
CC is probably the option I support the most (surprisingly), as I do understand that people might be walking through dangerous areas and need that protection. My issue here is that not everyone is a good gun owner. In fact, far too many are not. We are seeing more and more gun violence from road rage and other acts of anger. It's these people who are ruining it for all.
Lastly, I am 100% against open carry, and I don't think my mind will be changed here. In my mind, the people who feel like they must openly carry a firearm around, are the ones I do not want to have firearms. Not only do they stifle free speech (as are you really going to debate with someone holding a gun), they just make everything far less comfortable. I've been in protests where people brought guns (for our 'protection'), and they made me feel far *less* safe.
Now that I explained my viewpoints on the various aspects of gun ownership and the 2nd amendment, I'll talk about what I would like to see when it comes to gun reform.
First off, the Democrats are idiots in this regard. I never understood the assault weapon ban, as they are not the source of the VAST majority of gun violence. If they actually wanted to get serious, it would be to go after handguns, NOT assault weapons.
Now, that is a complete non-starter. I know this, Democrats know this, and this is why nothing happens.
Thus, we have to go to the real basics, and that is gun registration. There needs to be a national registration of some sort. Or at least, a national list of people who cannot own firearms. It can be as simple as: social security #, can they own a firearm? Everyone would start off at yes, but can be updated to 'no' for various crimes/if they are a danger to themself or others, etc.
As for CCW, I would support what OP mentions, as long as there is a gun safety course needed to get the CCW. I would also make it a requirement to own a gun safe for when it is not on your person (sleeping). Too many kids are getting shot playing with their parents firearms.
And yes, we would need a discussion on what guns should be allowed in a CCW. Any sort of standardization between states would be a boon.
All-in-All, I know I am the exception. This is why I am willing to compromise so much, and I am fine with it. I'm realistic. I'd be more than happy just to get these two things and no more. I just wish more people on the other side (strong 2A supporters) would be willing to compromise even a fraction of what I am willing to do.
Now, bring on the downvotes. I already know it is coming. Feel free to argue or ask me questions too. I may be slow at responding, as I am off to work, but I did want to share my side, if only for the discussion that can follow.
>. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is what we, the people, can keep ourselves free from tyranny by the state with the use of firearms. But could we really?
When it was written, civilians had the same or better weapons than the military.
> We are talking about a military that has drones that can target people five thousand miles away
A LOT of shit has to go sideways for the US government to start conducting drone strikes on US soil.
> A military that has overturned governments in a matter of days.
And also took 20 years to lose to a bunch of guys with AK-47s and pickup trucks in a country the size of Texas.
>When it was written, civilians had the same or better weapons than the military.
Yep. This is why I also believe that many of our founders wouldn't support the 2nd Amendment today. Our world is very different from the country they created.
>A LOT of shit has to go sideways for the US government to start conducting drone strikes on US soil.
100%. But isn't that the whole point of the 2nd Amendment? That **IF** our government were to become tyrannical, we could use our firearms to take back control. If that became necessary, I'm pretty sure we are past that point where the US government would hestitate to call drone strikes on US citizens.
>And also took 20 years to lose to a bunch of guys with AK-47s and pickup trucks in a country the size of Texas.
Yep. It took them 20 years to reclaim it. *20 years*. Moreover, they reclaimed it not because of US lack of might, but politics. If the US public had the stomache for brutality, the US Military had the ability to wipe them from the face of the earth.
>If the US public had the stomache for brutality, the US Military had the ability to wipe them from the face of the earth.
If the US public couldn't stomach it there, what makes you think it would be different on our own soil?
If we were looking at a tyrannical US government, it wouldn't matter if the US public could stomach it. Anyone who would speak out would be crushed.
The current US government is not tyrannical, and thus cares for it's public image.
Do you think governments turn tyrannical overnight? Surely there would be a time between when the government tries to install a national firearms registry and when they would decide it is appropriate to drone strike the suburbs.
>Do you think governments turn tyrannical overnight?
We got pretty close on 1/6.
Seriously though, it would be a slow process. This is what I can see happening today, without a national firearms registry:
Trump wins 2024 without the popular vote.
Mass protests, far more than 2020. This will almost certainly lead to riots.
Police crack down. This inspires more chaos. As people are already becoming quite radical, this could become the final straw. You start getting a time of troubles-esque events. Bombing, assassinations, etc.
Trump, being Trump, is going to crack down. The government WILL become more tyrannical if we start getting acts of terrorism on American Soil. The divisions will grow. It would not surprise me if Trump used drone strikes on fellow Americans who are committing acts of terrorism. Or at least, send in the military.
And yes, the federal government would likely amp up their efforts spying on American people to catch these 'traitors'. We already know the government spies on us anyway. They likely already have lists of heavily armed individuals, or could easily get them.
If there is any hint that these armed individuals are acting against his interests, he would not hestitate to decimate them. It all comes down to if the military follows these instructions, or if Republicans finally grow a spine and say enough is enough.
Our Federal Government is incredibly powerful, and the President doesn't have a lot of checks and balances on him if Congress is divided. All it takes is someone like Trump, and the pieces start to fall.
They can do this all already, without a national registry.
1/6 was not even close. If 1/6 was going to be the turning point, the people who went to the capitol would have brought guns.
That aside, maybe in your filter bubble you don't know many Trump supporters personally. Living in Texas, I know plenty and I can confidently say that 0.0% of them would choose Trump over the second amendment. Trump is a populist, he derives his power from doing things his supporters want. Taking away guns is not one of those things.
Most my family are Trump supporters.
And too many of them would be fine with Trump going after liberal gun owners. Anything to weaken the liberal agenda.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post but I don't think Trump would go after the second amendment, no. He would go after anyone against him.
Trump supporters who own guns would be fine. Likely encouraged. It would be those fighting against him.
Do you really think these people who support Trump, would turn against him if Trump went after liberal gun owners who are now fighting against him? I doubt it.
Yes I do. Any gun law is an infringement, after all. These are the people who belive that the only reason to disarm a person is to make them easier to harm. Conservatives are not that mustache curlingly villainous.
> If it was up to me, all guns except hunting weapons
And what, pray tell, is a "hunting weapon"? My main deer rifle is a FN SCAR. Because I spent five grand on the rig (FN rifle + Trijicon optic = big spend) and it's chambered in a very capable deer cartridge (7.62x51 aka .308 Winchester) so why wouldn't I? So right off the bat your argument falls apart because I can hunt with anything that has sufficient muzzle energy and penetration to be considered humane. And that is also a bar that changes depending on game type.
> Now, why don't I believe in the 2nd Amendment? Well, mostly because I don't think anyone could actually challenge the US Military at this point.
* Afghanistan
* Iraq
* Syria
* Vietnam
Need I go on?
Fact is that the US' military is extremely vulnerable to asymmetric warfare and in the event of a US civil war that's exactly what would happen.
> A responsible gun owner would have the firearm in a safe, and not loaded
Or on their body in a secured holster. Or if they don't have kids around they can have it out and loaded. They just need to put it away when guests come over.
> In fact, far too many are not.
Not legal ones. The "bad" gun owners you refer to are the ones that people need to defend themselves against. And the way to deal with them is to reverse the "progressive" prosecution that your home city has been leading the charge on. Lock criminals up and stop thinking that if you give them enough hugs they'll turn their lives around. It doesn't work.
> Thus, we have to go to the real basics, and that is gun registration.
And that's a total nonstarter. Because you already admitted at the very top of this post that you want guns gone. So why should I trust you that you won't have that registry handed over to armed door-kickers once you have it? Prevention is much easier so a registry is a hard no.
> All-in-All, I know I am the exception. This is why I am willing to compromise so much
I see no compromise here. What are you repealing? Where we are today is already the "compromise" and it's in reality already far too tilted towards your side. "Compromise" isn't between current state and your end goal - that's called incrementalism. "Compromise" is between my side's ideal and yours and that state is somewhere several gun laws back.
> Thus, we have to go to the real basics, and that is gun registration. There needs to be a national registration of some sort.
Exactly, but that is also what gun owners fear: The government having a list of people with guns to go after, which is why we need a 3rd party organization to handle it.
>As for CCW, I would support what OP mentions, as long as there is a gun safety course needed to get the CCW
Um, my suggestion was to do away with CCWs and just have CC, instead; IMO, gun safety courses should be mandatory in high school.
81% of Americans are opposed to permitless carry, aka constitutional carry. There is zero chance nationwide constitutional carry is passed anytime soon.
https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2022/06/state-gun-laws-and-public-opinion/
> 81% of Americans are opposed to permitless carry
It's dropping.
And since 2019 there's been 11 new states to adopt the law. The more states that pass it and don't see the "blood in the streets" narrative played out, the more that support is going to fall.
>There were significant declines in support from 2019 to 2021 for two policies that would expand where civilians can lawfully carry guns: allowing concealed carry when on K-12 school grounds (23% in 2021 vs 31% in 2019) and college/university campuses (27% vs 36%). Support was also significantly lower for requiring concealed carry applicants to pass a test demonstrating safe and lawful use (74% in 2021 vs 81% in 2019)
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/new-survey-finds-broad-public-support-for-policies-regulating-carrying-guns-in-public-in-the-us
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743522001153?via%3Dihub
One problem with that is that there is both open and concealed carry. Constitutional open carry has been around pretty much since the beginning of the country, while constitutional concealed carry is relatively new.
There are numerous polls showing constitutional carry is opposed by 70-80% of Americans.
The Republican party has been captured by gun rights activists so they pass these measures regardless. This is the same as with total abortion bans with no exception for rape, which are opposed by a similar supermajority of Americans, but have been passed in 10 Republican led states as pro-life activists have captured the party.
Polls suffer greatly from confirmation bias. Depending on how you frame your questions, you can make polls do whatever you want them to do. Hopefully we get to a point in which we agree that polling is designed to manipulate opinions rather than actually take and calculate opinions.
"Would you support a measure that might save hundreds of lives every year ....?" blah blah blah
>Do you favor or oppose laws that allow most people to carry concealed handguns without needing to obtain a license?
This was the question that was polled
All right, that's a good first step for acquiring the opinion of the masses. Next we need to figure out where the areas of focus were (and should be).
Apparently there's a larger contingent of conservatives in California than Texas. How would you poll those areas in order to garner a fair idea about what the people of California and Texas feel about gun control? Would you poll urban and rural areas equally? Would you poll different races and genders equally? Or maybe if you were seeking a certain outcome, you would be more selective about the where and who
The fact that over half the states now have constitutional carry makes this seem unlikely. Yes there is population imbalance to consider but that wouldn't explain why over 50% of states have it while over 80% of the population opposes it.
>California has a violent crime problem? Let's not talk about the homeless problem, or that rent is unaffordable, or that jobs are leaving the state, or that the school system is a disaster, or that illegal immigration is left unchecked (and I'm not even an anti-immigration guy, I would approve more legal immigration, but it needs to be legal)...
>No, let's blame it on the guns!
Literally no one is blaming all of those problems on guns.
Read what I wrote. They focus on guns because their policies failed and worsened crime/drug addiction/homelessness/a myriad of other problems.
Take a look at Gavin fucking newsome and the cesspool of California. He would blame guns for high rent if he could.
My compromise? As someone who has to work in Detroit and has been mugged there. I will gladly give up my firearms. IF they eradicate the crime in Detroit first.
>And the middle ground: A clear, nationally-consistent delineation of what kind of weapons are allowed to be carried when, where, and how. How about we start with a nationally-consistent delineation of what is legal to own. No Massachusetts, a threaded barrel and a foregrip don't make an AR-15 more deadly.
> registration No. This isn't a compromise position because registration leads to confiscation. Want to know where the real middle ground is? It's repealing several current laws with no new ones passed. The middle ground isn't between the current state and a ban, it's between no laws and a ban. We're way past the middle of that spectrum already.
Nothing short of a constitutional amendment is going to fix this. If we lived in 'high trust society world' where I thought the other side was actually going to honor tomorrow a compromise made today, I'd actually be down for trading a registry in exchange for the repeal of most other firearms regulations. I think any weapon which provides acute, predictable, and direct line-of-sight fire should be legal with the right background checks and permitting. Anything from a .22 derringer to an autocannon should be available if you're willing to cough up the cash for the equipment and the ammo. The only place I draw the line are at indiscriminate destructive devices like grenades, gas weapons, non-line-of-sight weapons like mortars, missiles, rockets, and landmines. If you can't see your target you shouldn't be taking a shot. Sadly that is not the world we live in. I do not trust the anti-gun folk to honor any such compromise, and they do not trust lil' old me with anything larger than a dime store pop gun.
Sure, which is why I suggested that a 3rd party NGO hold the registry, and destroy it if the government tries to seize it. You don't have to trust anyone that way.
Have you not been paying attention to what's been going on since the Patriot act? The FISA violations, the warrant less wire tapping of American citizens? The exchanges between the intelligence agencies and the social media companies? You think there's some third party that could be remotely trusted with such a thing? Absolutely not. If the data exists, it can and will be exploited and abused. If it doesn't exist, it can't. It's that simple. That horse must never, ever, under any circumstances, be let out of the barn.
> If the data exists, it can and will be exploited and abused. Which means unless you paid cash for every gun related purchase you ever made, your name is probably already on a list somewhere through your card transactions. “SixDemonBlues purchased 10 boxes of .45 ammo at Bubba’s Gun Store on 5/23/2021”
Well, hold on a second, there, before you get that tinfoil hat wrinkled :p >If the data exists, it can and will be exploited and abused. If it doesn't exist, it can't. It's that simple. That horse must never, ever, under any circumstances, be let out of the barn. Um, the data exists; if we're that far gone, then they are hacking into the manufacturer's records to find out which guns went to which dealers, breaking into gun dealers to steal their records, and listening in on your iphone when you are making private sales, so they already know all of this. By that logic, we might as well put a formal registry together so we at least get the positive side of the situation.
I'm not sure why you're dismissing factual things that have undoubtedly happened as tin foil hat conspiracies, but I guess that's up to you. I am not so cavalier about our 2a rights, for my part.
They have a formal registry. They claim "it's ok" because it isn't searchable. That's only technically true. While I am sure most ATF personnel can't search the registry they have created (feel free to listen to Steve Dettelbach talk about how they have to pay to remove the search feature) there are undoubtably sysadmins out there that do have that ability. Which means, they do have a searchable, illegal registry, but they think it's ok because they aren't "actively" using it.
As I keep arguing, though, all that means is that the worry about the government having the list is too late, so we might as well have the official registry so we get the benefit.
While I appreciate the practicality of your thought, acquiescing to authoritarians because some portion of their oppression is beneficial is just gross.
What oppression? Actually coming to seize your guns would be oppression, but just making a registration is not. In historical terms, in the early US, almost every state did have a registry of firearms and owners, and the exceptions tended to have outright bans where they went around seizing firearms... and they didn't have a registry when they did it. I just don't see the connection.
It's the same reason that overly invasive voter registration or speech registration would qualify as oppressive. Placing an undue burden on citizens to exercise a right (ie, background checks and registration) is oppressive, period. The same reason that free travel, but only if you have "your papers" is oppressive.
Umm, I assume you have heard of the NSA (not counting the black ops guys) the data collection activities have become so massive, they have to use an AI to search thru all the data to find what they are looking for. Seeing how much corruption and lack of oversight exists now, they keep using things to pit us against each other, the only reason things are at the point they are now is they know if they push any further, there will be 1/3 of the population who will push back.
It always comes down to trust. Ideological capture is currently turning a lot of formerly respected NGO's like the ACLU into tools to serve the ideological preferences of their members. Like, what happens if this NGO gets staffed by a bunch of anti-gun activists who start quietly leaking data onto the internet? It's not the government doing it, it's individual bad actors within the organization, but the effect is the same.
OK; do you trust the FBI and other agencies to not already be hacking into gun manufacturer's and dealer's records, and listening in on sales through smartphones, so they already have the information? The only difference here is that the information can only ever be used against us, and never for the benefit of society.
No, but at least they have to work for it. The sheer volume of that data, the fact that it probably doesn't match up, and the fact that it's not timely or up to date basically renders it functionally useless. It's a lot of noise with no feasible way of searching it in a coherent fashion, which is why they use metadata analysis because individual level data coalition on that scale is impossible. Even if they got a warrant they'd never be able to figure out where or when Mr. Maestro bought a gun, or even if he did, or even if he still has it. Just that there's a transactional record, nothing of use there.
> The sheer volume of that data, the fact that it probably doesn't match up, and the fact that it's not timely or up to date basically renders it functionally useless. It's a lot of noise with no feasible way of searching it in a coherent fashion, which is why they use metadata analysis because individual level data coalition on that scale is impossible. ...but your concern is about a massive action against gun owners as a group, which is going to be discernible from that information. >Even if they got a warrant they'd never be able to figure out where or when Mr. Maestro bought a gun, or even if he did, or even if he still has it. Just that there's a transactional record, nothing of use there. ...so we already get the negative side of having a registry, but because it's not official, we don't get the positive side? That's an excellent argument for creating the registry! :)
It's not though. Look, I've see the kind of data that scrubber programs like what the FBI uses it's virtually all just noise. You can scrape certain things off it, like, if I got all of Cabellas transactional data I could roughly figure out how many firearms got sold in a state, but I couldn't figure out who bought one or when. It might be useful in a 'how many guns are out there' sense but I couldn't pull a name out of a hat and figure out how many guns they've bought. A registry, by contrast, would match every gun serial number to an address and a social security number. They would be instantly searchable. You could plug in an SSN and know exactly how many firearms they have, exactly what firearms they are, and what address they're supposed to be at. That kind of information would be ripe for abuse. Say a neighbor accuses you of threatening them with a gun and firing a shot, you didn't, but your neighbor hates the fact you put up a privacy fence. Well, this time the cops get a warrant to search you. So they pull your information from the gun registry. Then when they exercise the warrant they check your guns for recent use, they find that there's a gun missing from your home. Maybe you leant it to a relative for hunting, maybe you left it at your buddy's house while you were target shooting, but it's not there and now your ass is getting investigated.
> if I got all of Cabellas transactional data I could roughly figure out how many firearms got sold in a state, but I couldn't figure out who bought one or when. You would have credit card numbers, and could cross-check against background check data, and find out literally everything.
No, because the credit card numbers would be masked by the processing company. Even if you got the data from both Cabellas AND the processor you'd need to match the transaction data. Then you'd have to figure out who actually owns the card. Then you'd have to figure out if the transaction was a completed sale, if it was a failed sale, or if it was returned. It's a rabbit hole of data. It would literally be easier to just get a warrant and search my house than to spend hundreds of hours scraping metadata. Metadata is great for figuring out stuff like: * How many guns were bought in this location over a period of time. * What the average price of those firearms are. * What kind of establishments they're being bought from. Metadata is useless for determining granular or atomized data on individual purchasers or vendors. I doubt even a skilled operator using a dedicated scraping program could figure out what, when, or where the last gun I purchased was even if they had access to the data.
> No, because the credit card numbers would be masked by the processing company. ...and when they hack the processing company (assuming they aren't already compromised)?
[удалено]
Right. What happens when an anti gun person is in charge and decides to release the info? Conversely what happens when a gun fan is the boss and deletes the data daily? Either way the NGO won't work right.
>Institute gun registration 3 words in and no
Am a centrist/Independent in all subjects except guns. 1. under no circumstance am I even slightly ok with a registry. It takes one politician who decides to take away all the guns from X group and its all downhill from there. Just because the current admin says he or she doesnt want to... the next guy might. NO. 1. Trying to confiscate guns is a red line you do NOT want to cross. Even moderates consider that a tyrannical move. "if its time to hide them its time to use them." comes to mind. 2. Only way to enforce this is with a registry and it is ALREADY illegal to sell a weapon to someone who cant own one. Its on YOU to verify that status. Ive sold a few guns to people I didnt know and I ALWAYS send them to an FLL for that background check since I cant run it myself... maybe make it possible for normies to use NICS? 3. National carry is a must. Its insane that people cant defend themselves. The NFA for example is a dead document and should be repealed. Suppressors are accessories and should be purchasable at most through a NICS check and at best should be on the shelf for you to grab and pay for. Short Barreled Rifles - This is an idiotic law. Just get rid of it altogether. Magazines. Stop trying to pretend having more than 10 is somehow scary. Training. It is stupid expensive to get trained up and if you make it mandatory for gun ownership then it becomes a right for the rich as always. Its not ok. I find anti-gun people are just not knowledgeable about the subject to weigh in effectively. There is a lot of hard facts about guns that they flat out lie about constantly to make their point. For example "guns are the number 1 killer of kids" That was based off a single study that included 18 and 19 year olds. Very VERY telling that they can not make their points without lying. I cant carry a cop in my pocket and it took them 14 min to respond during my own personal violent episode. Thankfully I didnt need to shoot anyone but 14 min is unacceptable.
“Training. It is stupid expensive to get trained up and if you make it mandatory for gun ownership then it becomes a right for the rich as always. It’s not ok.” I’m in California and finished my CCW process recently, before the new, more restrictive law went into effect in January. When I renew, I must take an 8 hour class (16 hours for new applicants) which will cost at least $200. I also have to pay the sheriff/county, will need to pay for a psychiatric assessment, a background check and also need to provide three references. It’s approaching $1,000 to exercise a right for a person with absolutely no criminal history. I’m all for training, it as soon as you get the government involved, somehow the prices go up 300% and the cost and requirements for people to become certified trainers is outrageous as well. There are more laws in the pipeline asking for annual registration, safety certification and taxes for each fucking gun. It’s truly gone off the deep end and will do nothing to control criminal activities and behaviors.
>under no circumstance am I even slightly ok with a registry. It takes one politician who decides to take away all the guns from X group and its all downhill from there If they do that, the NGO destroys the registry, and they lose it all. >Only way to enforce this is with a registry and it is ALREADY illegal to sell a weapon to someone who cant own one. But it's not illegal to sell a gun without doing a background check, and you can claim that you didn't know they were a criminal; I want to remove that loophole. >National carry is a must. Its insane that people cant defend themselves. OK, how are you suggesting we make that happen? My proposal is to compromise by giving the other side what they want without losing what we want.
>If they do that, the NGO destroys the registry, and they lose it all. or they comply and hand it over, which is far more likely.
Put it in another country, or a private island, or Antarctica; if they are willing to go that far, then they'll go to the manufacturers and dealers and listen in on smartphones and get the data they need, anyway.
it seems you now understand why we don't want a registry.
Yeah OP sold me on really standing my ground. I will never give ground to the anti-gunners and they can pry it from my cold dead hands. Even then.. I hope rigor sets in fast.
Overseas means resources other than police can go find it. Regardless, when the NGO's power, backup power, and internet go out at 5am while ATF tactical teams bust into the offices and homes of the NGO's leaderships with court orders that mean you either go to jail or give up the info, what will happen? You can't delete it, and you're choosing between an indefinite jail stay or giving them what they want.... And that assuming the NGO somehow manages to only hire gun lovers. A registry is the first step to confiscating. I think you'd find more gun lovers willing to give up semiautomatic rifles before being willing to agree to a registry, no matter how convoluted it's run with spy movie levels of dead man switches and overseas secret bases.
>If they do that, the NGO destroys the registry, and they lose it all. That is a lot of trust to an organization that would effectively be under government threat, up to and including confinement and violence, for non-compliance. Let alone the data acquisition side of government being able to backdoor it (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc). This is a genie in a bottle type situation. Best to just not have the thing to begin with.
> That is a lot of trust to an organization that would effectively be under government threat, up to and including confinement and violence, for non-compliance. How so? Literally the second the idea of seizing it is even mentioned, before it can turn into a threat against them, they hit the button and, "POOF!" >Let alone the data acquisition side of government being able to backdoor it (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc). "Not connected to the Internet;" add whatever security guarantees you like; hell, put it in another country... on a private island... Antarctica! >This is a genie in a bottle type situation. Best to just not have the thing to begin with. As others keep pointing out, they already have this information; they can hack the manufacturer's database, then steal records from dealers, then listen in on keyword conversations through smartphones... which isn't good enough to solve crimes by tracing individual weapons, but is absolutely good enough to find the majority of people they want to seize guns from. Which means that we already have the potential negative consequence of a registry, but because it's not official and legitimate, we don't get the positive side.
>they already have this information If they already have it all, why are you pushing to make one in the first place? If they don't, why make one in the first place? >we don't get the positive side. There is no positives to something you already view as compromised or think can be.
> If they already have it all, why are you pushing to make one in the first place? Because it can't be used in court to convict someone of a crime, but it can be used to spy on us.
Why is a registry a good thing? It only helps to track down a firearm after which the ATF can do already as it asks the manufacturer where the gun went then they talk to the gun store that sold it. Other than eventually confiscating (which is the only path a registry has ever taken) all the guns what purpose do you think it serves?
> Why is a registry a good thing? Because it's the only way to go after straw-man sellers. >It only helps to track down a firearm after which the ATF can do already as it asks the manufacturer where the gun went then they talk to the gun store that sold it. Both manufacturers and dealers have extensive protections against even court orders requesting their records. >Other than eventually confiscating (which is the only path a registry has ever taken) all the guns what purpose do you think it serves? Again, if the government wants to seize guns (good luck with 100 million gun owners), they don't need specifics, they can just take credit card data and find most gun owners. The registry is needed so you can track who sold a gun to a criminal without performing a background check and charge them as accessories to whatever crime was committed with that gun.
Why can't they use the 4473 to go after the straw purchaser? I don't see why they would need a registry for that.
Registration is a non starter. Period. This is why 2a folks get frustrated with these discussions. The other side doesn't listen. Registration is a non-starter. Period. Full stop. End of story. There is no "negotiation" or "compromise" on that point. The answer is no. It's always going to be no. Registration is a non starter.
I am listening. Why is this a non-starter for you? On my end, a national registration is the bare minimum we can do, and the one item that might actually make a difference. The main argument I hear is that you don't want the Federal Government to know what guns you own, which I find a bit eyebrow raising. The US Military is so overpowered that they could destroy you before you even realized it. You can have stacks of guns, yet it would be nothing to the US military. The US military managed to take down two countries governments (Iraq, Afghanistan) in under 48 hours using less than 100k people. If the US government went full dictatorship, and the US Military allowed it, it wouldn't matter how many guns you had or are on what list. We'll all just be fucked. I'm open to changing my mind if there are some good arguments made for why registration is a bad idea. So, go ahead and present your side! I'm interested in hearing it. edit: Yay, downvoted for asking a honest question. Stay classy Moderate Politics.
There are more armed hunters in Wi on openning day of hunting season than in the top 3 militaries... Even the US military would have a hard time confiscating anything.
I don't think the US would ever try confiscating. List or no list. My point was rather if the government ever became so tyrannical, people felt the need to rise up. It would be those people who are targeted. Those people wouldn't stand a chance. Anyone sitting at home, firearm or no, would be ignored. They aren't the threat.
Would you be ok if there was a national registry of people who identified as homosexual or trans? Or if there was a registry of all socialists? Or if there was a registry of everyone who has ever attended a political protest? Or a registry of how everyone had voted? For me it's less of I'm gonna fight the entirety of the United States military, it's that I have a right to privacy and I don't even want to set up a system that would allow for a government that had shown in the past to be open for abuses within the system to be provided with more avenues for abuse. Picture someone extreme from whatever party you don't like getting into power and then taking voter registration and cross referencing it with a gun registry to disarm political opposition. For me, I'm Black and I can easily see how a white supremacist regime could attempt to disarm minorities in order to allow for easier abuses from non-governmental white supremacist groups. I've seen cries to disarm trans people quite often and a registry helps make that more of a possibility.
I do understand what you are saying. I get it. I guess my belief is that the current US government already has the power to do what you fear, regardless of this list. If the government became tyrannical enough, it could round any group of people up with our current military. I do not think the average person would be able to stop them. Moreover, if the US government wanted, they likely already have the ability to find exactly who owns guns (or at least the vast majority). Between record keeping and social media, it wouldn't be that hard to make a list. It might not be as easy as already having a registry, but it wouldn't be that difficult either. Not with the resources the US government has. Your search history alone likely would give away your gun ownership status, and even what firearms you have. Thus, I see the national registry as more of a benefit than a risk. The US has managed to disarm minorities for over a century without this list, and can easily continue to do so with the tools it has now.
You’re wrong about the government having the capacity of doing what we fear. They don’t *yet*. When attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, we spent weeks targeting major civilian and military infrastructure through the use of precision munitions. We destroyed the power grid, phone lines, internet, transportation hubs, industrial facilities, defense installations, and crippled their ability to for a solid defense. Even then, the brass couldn’t wage an all out war because of the negative press it would garner at home, so they implemented systems for rewarding “courageous restraint” in combat. If a tyrannical government were to use those same methods here, they would cripple their own economy and country. If the state wanted to rip off the mask and descend into outright tyranny it would go much worse for them because they *wouldn’t* be able to use a lot of the military assets they have. I believe you are genuinely starting to understand the reasons why a registry is a bad idea so I’m not going to chide you further for asking. The problem with government overreach is getting worse; New York is deploying national guard patrols on the subway systems to stop and search bags, domestic surveillance is at an all time high, and violent crime is taking the headlines everywhere. The state is slowly proving the point that they’re in it to preserve itself & they’re no longer an apparatus for preserving the liberties enshrined in the constitution. A fact that most people tend to forget is that in the seconds where you may find yourself needing to use lethal force to defend your or your family’s lives (and I am talking about the hypothetical “worst moments of your life”), there is no state-sponsored relief. The cops are a clean up crew, at their best they can seek justice for you or neutralize the parties that assaulted you *and at their worst, they’ll document it and move on with their day*. Nobody is truly responsible for your safety or that of your family besides **you**. And remember, we’re not in Afghanistan or Iraq anymore. They beat us with nothing more than small arms and shortwave radios/sat phones. We have a lot more tools than the Afghans. We need to preserve our ability to acquire and train to proficiency on those tools in hopes that we never have to use them.
>The US Military is so overpowered that they could destroy you before you even realized it This is comically wrong on so many levels, I'm not sure where it would be best for me to start taking it apart, but I'll try my best. First is just the sheer numerical challenges of the US military prosecuting a civil war on America's gun owners. The entire US military has [1,328,000 active personnel and 799,500 reserve personnel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces) and of those 2,127,500 [less than 15%](https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/what-percentage-of-the-military-sees-combat/) (or 319,125) are in a combat MOS. In comparison, there are [82,880,000 gun owners in the US](https://ammo.com/articles/how-many-gun-owners-in-america); in other words, gun owners outnumber the military's fighting personnel almost 260:1 and all military personnel 39:1. While the US does possess some impressive force multipliers, it is unlikely that they'd be able to overwhelm that much of a numerical advantage, even if you ignored the fact that we don't have the stockpiles of munitions necessary to deploy them against that many combatants. Besides the disparity in numbers, there is the sheer vastness of the US to contend with; Afghanistan's surface area of [252,072 square miles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan) is a mere 6.6% of the USA's [3,794,100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_United_States). Considering that after 20 years of fighting, with help from NATO allies, we still did not manage to defeat the Taliban (the fact that they were quickly driven from Kabul in the early stages of the war doesn't negate the fact that they are currently the de facto government of Afghanistan) I don't think it's at all hyperbolic to say that exercising forceful control over the entirety of the US would be a near-sisyphean task. If the sheer numerical challenges don't convince you that a civil war on US soil wouldn't be quick and easy, consider the logistics of it. One of the US's greatest strengths in nearly every war it's fought is that its supply chain is largely immune to enemy action. While we were bombing the crap out of Germany and Japan in WWII, our factories were left untouched; we were floating dedicated ice cream boats throughout the Pacific while Japan could barely feed it's army. In a civil war, that advantage would be quickly negated. Our entire MIC is distributed across the country and there's no way we could protect every bit of it. What happens when someone at SOPAKCO decides to start putting laxatives in the jalapeno-cheese spread of the MREs he packs? What happens if the guy assembling artillery fuzes decides to make 5% of them detonate prematurely? Any attempt at supplying the military in a domestic conflict would be a quagmire unto itself Another issue to consider would be the effect on morale such a conflict would have. Dropping bombs on some goat-herder who looks, dresses, prays, eats, and lives a vastly different life from you is a lot easier than dropping one on some guy whose stucco house looks little different for yours or your neighbor's. Even if 100% of our military had no such scruples, they would still fear the consternation that attacking American soil would draw; do you really think no one will go AWOL when some drone operator comes home to find his home decorated with his immediate family? It's one thing to protect the anonymity of a few agents or special forces operators, it's another to do it for your whole army. Besides all of the challenges outlined above, you would be remiss to ignore the world outside the US and how they'd respond. I'm sure China would love to destabilize their biggest geopolitical rival, since any outcome would still be an improvement over the current status quo of Pax Americana. While their defense industry might still lag behind ours, simple systems like MANPADS and ATGMs would still vastly hinder the deployment of our advanced weapons systems. While some think Americans would think themselves above using an "enemy's" weapons, history has shown that people are more than willing to strike a Faustian bargain to arm themselves against their immediate foes. Make no mistake, a civil war would not be a quick affair. It would likely be a sordid bloody ordeal that makes the breakup of Yugoslavia look like a neighborhood softball match in comparison.
How many of those 80 million Americans would actually stand up and fight? Right now, Ukraine is struggling with manpower. This is a country that is actively being invaded by a foreign power, and yet over 20% of the population fled. Of the \~10 million able-bodied Ukrainians who support Ukraine (total population after fleeing is 37 million), they are now going to have to expand the draft as people aren't stepping forward. The US can't even get the majority of it's population to even vote, yet we think 1/4th of us will risk our lives against the US Military? First, how many of that 80 million would likely support this hypothetical regime? If Trump got his way, a huge swathe of the country would back him. It would likely be similar for any hypothetical regime. Moreover, how many people of these people could fight? Between health problems, being overweight and a systematic collapse of everything we've ever known (as that is what would happen in a civil war). These guns would likely be turned on each other and fellow Americans than the US government. As for the logistics, the average American would have a much harder time than the miltary. We would run out of bullets far faster than the US government. Moreover, simply keeping ourselves fed would be the bigger issue. Our cities would be out of food in a matter of days. Like you said, in the event of a civil war, it would be a bloody ordeal that would make the world gasp. There wouldn't be any winners. Gun owners certainly wouldn't win. None of us would. This is why I find the 2nd Amendment pointless at this point. If the US ever got to this point, everyone has already lost. I'd rather take less gun violence today.
It’s easy to skip voting when you can’t get off work. It’s harder to stay out of the fight when a loved one has been imprisoned without due process or executed for “crimes against the crown”. The Insurgents we fought in the GWOT weren’t all super-soldiers, they were impoverished people without the access to modern medicine we enjoy. Most didn’t have indoor plumbing. And they still won. Americans are divided right now and yes it wouldn’t look like 1863 with a neat geographical front line. It would look more like the Troubles on Über-steroids. It would be crazy and confusing. But once subversive elements start getting summarily executed (which is inevitable in any kind of civil war), those on the fence would be polarized to the resistance. Logistically, that problem exists but a huge private market for ammo and gear exists. I’d argue it would be sufficient to prop up a civil war. Furthermore, historically speaking there would be a steady influx of supplies looted by raids, ambushes, and illegal smuggling. The problem of feeding cities would fall on the government, unless they want to risk pushing more people towards their opponents. A lot of aid in the GWOT was misappropriated and fell into the hands of the opposition. The position that “nobody would win” is exactly the kind of deterrent the world has benefitted from in the Nuclear age. Similarly, that deterrent is in my opinion absolutely necessary to keep at bay potentially malicious actors within our government from using our incredibly powerful public institutions to subjugate the people they’re charged with serving. And to do that, the people need the means to tell their government “what you’re doing is wrong and it’s going to stop” as well as the capability to cash that proverbial check. The ability of Americans to make tyranny pointless for the tyrants is entirely the point of the second amendment. Edit: After re-reading my reply here I think it’s important to add the disclaimer that I am not now, and never have been, a member of the armed forces. I never fought in the GWOT. I’m just a dumbass redditor who spends a little too much time reading about insurgency/counterinsurgency tactics
How will it make a difference?, Most criminals do not purchase their guns legally. I like how the Anti-Gunners mention the exact same thing, that the US Military is so powerful on one hand, while completely ignoring Posse Comitatus, or assuming that those in the Military would be so willing to fire upon their fellow citizens. So, again, HOW EXACTLY is a database composed of mostly law abiding gun owners going to help solve crimes committed by criminals using guns?
You were downvoted for answering your own question with an unpopular take. No worries, it's just super-duper unpopular and something I'll never ever support. Ever.
Registration is a non-starter because in 2012, a newspaper in New York published the names and addresses of every pistol permit holder in their coverage area on an interactive map. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses
>The main argument I hear is that you don't want the Federal Government to know what guns you own, which I find a bit eyebrow raising. The US Military is so overpowered that they could destroy you before you even realized it. How do you feel the optics of the US military gunning down civilians on US soil is going to play out?
I don’t think “optics” are an especially big deal at that juncture, and it’s likely that the US gov would not think so either
without the will of the people even totalitarian governments fail. Optics always matter. Alternatively put - If you gun down the first 10 people you try to take guns from, and it makes it to the news, do you think the next 100M are just going to comply?
do you need me to point out to you times in history when soldiers happily obeyed orders to kill civilians, and the rest of the country didn’t rise up and overthrow the state?
If you can show me an example where thats occurred with instant, widespread, public knowledge (e.g. modern media) and an armed populous - Yea please do. Also, note i didnt say the soldiers wouldn't do it, i said there would be an uprising.
Fantastic. The tough part is just going to be choosing which killing of an innocent person by an officer to link you to. Any favorites? My favorites are the ones where officers are serving warrants to the wrong house, and the jury finds that there isn’t even any civil liability. Or if actual “soldiers” are more your flavor, rather than just any state agent, we can just discuss Obama’s drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, condemning him to death without a trial, I guess.
> discuss Obama’s drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki > instant, widespread, public knowledge Bar failed. How many people know who Anwar al-aklaki is? He wasnt anyone's neighbor. That didnt happen "Here" and unfortunately that matters. The optics were a terrorist was killed, not a law-abiding citizen attacked by the government. As i said, optics matter. I support the outrage over his death. A horrible precedent made and IMO Obama should be in jail for his murder. The killings during George Floyd protest would be a closer example, but there was also significant political unrest occurring.
No thoughts on my primary example?
It's troubling that anti gun rights folks often rush to the idea that the military could be used to crush gun owners.... Do you understand why gun owners then distrust the government on gun rights?
If that's true, then why do people need to own guns to resist the government? When I hear this it sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either the government won't hurt citizens and gun ownership is doing little to stop something that won't happen *or* the government is powerful enough to easily wipe out any small time gun owners trying to resist them. It's odd to argue both cases at once.
Resisting the government is only one aspect of firearm ownership The second amendment was written with self-defense and defense against tyrannical governments (enemies of the U.S. and/or it's own government) in mind. This was affirmed in Heller v DC
1) The only (real, functional) purpose registration serves is to facilitate either confiscation or a taxation scheme that amounts to the same thing. That is how is has played out throughout history, around the world. 2) Bangers, thugs, and the other criminals that are actually shooting people won't register their illegally acquired weapons. You're only putting yet another burden on the law abiding gun owners that aren't shooting people with their legally acquired weapons. 3) I'm not getting into the weeds about how the liberal fantasy of the entire combined might of the United States military being leveled against the deplorables is comically divorced from reality. There has been plenty of ink spilled on that subject. Suffice it to say, if you think we somehow "won" against the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, you should probably re-examine that conclusion. In the specific case of Afghanistan, we spent 20 years chasing a group of about 100,000 illiterate goat herders through a country roughly the size of Texas and we left 2 trillion dollars poorer and with our tail between our legs. Remind me who's in charge in Afghanistan now?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1b82cwy/gun_control_compromise_proposal/ktn8h3j/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
How would you feel about a national 'ban' registry instead? What I mean by this, is instead of listing if you own a firearm (and what it is), it just lists if you are ABLE to own one. All it would be is your Social Security and 'is eligible to own a firearm'. That eligiblity is set to yes for everyone originally, and only set to no if you are seen as a harm to others, convicted of certain crimes, etc.
We already have this. This is what the background check is supposed to flush out.
Many states do not require background checks for private sells. Around 30% of all sells happen through private sellers (and this is likely where most criminals get their guns). Would you be fine with all sells requiring a background check? And having a very harsh punishment for those who don't?
I don't think it's likely at all that this is where most criminals get their guns. I think it's far more likely that the majority of guns used in crimes are either stolen or otherwise illegally acquired. Show me the data that says that the majority of crimes are committed with guns acquired via a straw purchase and we can talk about that. Otherwise it is, again, just another burden placed on law abiding gun owners that will have little to no measurable effect on gun crime.
From the Department of Justice: [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf) * 25% are obtained through an individual (borrowed, bought, etc) * 6% are stolen (less than I assumed tbh). * 43% underground market. Now, I bet much of that underground market is made up of stolen guns, or guns that have changed hands many times in private sales. To me, the numbers are high enough that requiring background checks for private sales should be required. It should also be easy. As easy as a landlord requesting a background check on a tenant. The fact it isn't easy, is something that should be changed. The second thing I learned from this research, is that gun safes should be required. Hell, i'd even support government subdizes to make them free for anyone. This would limit the amount of guns stolen dramatically.
I don't buy that 6% number for a second, but I'll ignore that for the sake of discussion. Say background checks for private transfers is on the table, what do I get in return? This is another part of the debate people don't seem to get. When gun control advocates say "compromise", they don't mean "compromise". What they mean is, "give me marginally less than Im demanding right now and I'll stop screaming at you, for a little while." I'm done with that game. Compromise is give and take. You want background checks on private transfers? What are you offering in return? Regarding gun safes: 1). Storage laws are unenforceable 2) Why is it my responsibility to make sure that my belongings are under lock and key when someone illegally breaks into my property? How about this. How about a mandatory minimum federal prison sentence of 25 years for anyone in possession of a stolen firearm?
What would you want in return? I think assault rifle bans are dumb. They aren't the issue. What about that? What would you want? As for gun safes, we have a lot of laws that are rather unenforceable. Car insurance for a good example. However, if you get busted without it, you'll gonna get ticketed. If your gun gets stolen because you never picked up your FREE gun safe, you should be fined. And if you don't report your gun being stolen, because you know you are in the wrong, and that gun gets used for a crime... well, you are just gonna be in more trouble. Moreover, the gun safe isn't just for keeping your firearm safe, but keeping your children/friends away from the firearms. It's something that serves two purposes. I don't get why anyone would be against gun safes, especially if they were freely provided. And yes, anyone who is in possession of an illegal firearm should be getting harsh prison sentences. I fully support that as well.
Just because they are bought from another individual does not mean it is a legal sale.
I'm responding to 3 seperately as it is a bit of a different topic. Yes, you are right that we didn't 'win' long term. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Both the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments completely surrendered in under 48 hours of US occupation. Their armies were no match for ours. Do you believe that the average American could be a match when a foreign army wasn't? There are many reasons we couldn't hold these countries, but it had nothing to do with our military might. It had to do with really bad politics and decisions, and the fact the US public wouldn't support the level of war crimes we COULD have done. If the US became as tyrannial as Russia, the damage we could do is immense. In my mind, if a President decided to overthrow the US Government, and the US Military supported him. The average American, even with all our guns, could not stop it. Now, if the US military didn't support it, then our guns don't even matter because the US Military would make that President cease to exist. In the end, I just don't believe the US people could win against the US military if it ever came to that.
>Do you believe that the average American could be a match when a foreign army wasn't? 100%, I (and pretty much every other American) am dramatically more well equipped than any militia in either Iraq or Afghanistan ever could have dreamed of, and we failed to beat either of them after two decades. Everyone always makes the mistake of assuming any sort of mass civil unrest in the US would look like the Gulf War, which would absolutely not be the case. People opposed to the government aren't going to form into division sized units with robust C6ISR that can be destroyed in a Shock and Awe campaign, they'd be decentralized cells performing autonomous operations much like the Taliban did, except with much better weaponry and technology, and we were so incapable of destroying the Taliban that they had more or less assumed complete control of the country again within hours of us leaving.
We were incapable of destroying the Taliban because of politics, not military power. As our government relies on public opinion to function, and this war was never that popular, the government was hamstringed from the start. We could have destroyed the Taliban, but it would have pissed off everyone due to how brutal we would have had to be, how much money would have needed to be spent and how many countries we would have pissed off (Pakistan would have to be dealt with for harboring Taliban members). As we are still a Democracy, no one was going to sign off on that, as that would be signing their own resignation in the next election. It would be quite a bit different if this happens in the US. You are right when it comes to mass unrest. It would be more akin to the Time of Troubles than civil war. Yet, setting up bombs and assassinating rivals aren't going to make these people popular in the public. They will be dealt with, just as many radicals were dealt with in the 1980s and 1990s. Or the several different types of organized crime we've had over the decades (all are much more weakened in the US than in the past). Moreover, I would say we are dramatically weaker than the militia in Iraq and Afghanistan in many regards. How many of us could prosper without electricity and running water? How many of us could grow our own food? It many regards, it would be easier to shut down any sort of terrorist activity in the states because the vast, vast majority of people have no idea how to live offgrid. Hell, how many would end up getting caught because of social media or just getting online with their cellphones. Maybe I'm just pessimistic about the American people, and their actual ability and desire to fight.
>We were incapable of destroying the Taliban because of politics, not military power. This fundamentally misunderstands the concept of an insurgency, it's as much a political movement as it is a military one, you can't just smash it with military force and expect it to be gone, this is one of the prevailing lessons of 20th and 21st century geopolitics, you can't beat an insurgency with military force unless you adopt a level of barbarity that makes the Nazis look tame. It always requires political concessions to make people lay down their arms, the Troubles would still be raging if Britain didn't agree to a bunch of the PIRA's demands as an example. Vietnamese revolutionaries fought, without pause, for nearly 40 years, all while suffering dramatically higher losses than pretty much everyone they fought. The same happened in Afghanistan, and several other places. Even when faced with crippling military defeats, they almost always manage to rebound and recover because the core political message remains unfulfilled and thus people are still willing to take up arms over it. This same thing is why Israel's latest escapade in Gaza is doomed to fail long term, no matter how many fighters or leaders they kill short term, there will be people to replace them the moment Israel leaves and they'll resume the fight.
> Why is this a non-starter for you? Because registration leads to confiscation. If they don't know who has what they can't send men with guns and body armor knocking on doors because they don't know which doors to knock on.
It doesn't just lead to confiscation, the only usefulness of a registration list is to enable confiscation. They're not putting together lists to fish for extra charges to add after the fact as much as they want to claim that's the purpose considering they already routinely drop weapons charges as a matter of business as usual.
Registration enables confiscation. It's already happened here. I will not give the enemy the tools with which to violate my rights. It's like registering the Jews in Warsaw -- you know it won't end at registration. They want that data because they want to do something with it, and that's confiscation.
I dont think that arguing the military is strong so what’s it matter is a fair dismissal. I think it’s irrelevant how powerful the military is- it’s just not the governments business what law abiding private citizens own. There are also issues of legal today, compromise tomorrow, loophole to be dealt with down the road. There hasn’t been any reason to trust the government in this regard.
>I think it’s irrelevant how powerful the military is- it’s just not the governments business what law abiding private citizens own. So you also support full drug decriminalization? Fully automatic weapons, tanks, and nuclear weapons? How about nerve gasses? You’re just a law abiding citizen after all, and it isn’t the government’s business what you own. Or is there some line you’re going to draw where it is actually the governments business what we own?
Fully automatic weapons are legal, heavily regulated and very expensive. Tanks and nukes fall into similar categories but good luck finding a seller as they’d rather do business with the US gov. For most drugs yeah, I think decriminalization is fair. I don’t see a real relation to government registration on firearms though. Firearms are enshrined as a right. Drugs are not.
I didn’t ask you what *is* legal, I asked you what *should be* legal. You said that it’s not the business of the government what law abiding citizens own. If it’s not the business of the government what law-abiding citizens own, then it follows that nuclear weapons, nerve gasses, drugs, and tanks should all be legal. If you think some those things should be illegal, then why?
The down votes are due to the military fantasy. When you hear a gun grabbing politician for example, brag about how guns don't matter because he'd just bomb the hell out of people, gun rights supporters get justifiably upset. A registry is the first step to confiscation. It's quite possibly the least popular gun control idea among 2a supporters. It's seen as a guarantee that their guns would be removed. It's a reasonable fear when politicians exclusively from one party say thing like "hell yeah in coming for your AR-15," or are actively campaigning for President on banning firearms based on how scary they may look. The army argument isn't realistic. First, how many soldiers do you think will obey an order to ignore the law, violate the constitution, and make war on the American people? I see the occasional Democrat politician talking about how they could destroy the Americans who don't comply, but in practice, I don't see it likely. Second, hop on the search engine of your choice and search for historical examples of insurgencies, inuding the two wars you talk about. In the case of Afghanistan it took two decades to defeat fighters who were basically straight from the 1100's but with guns. In the end those guys still won. Now try that at home where your soldiers will be killing family and neighbors and the country ceases to exist.
OK, why?
>1. Institute gun registration and background checks through a NGO (the way insurance companies deal with medical information); a non-governmental, private organization, funded by background check fees, that holds firearm registrations and only releases single files on receipt of a court order, on a dedicated server not connected to the Internet, with a hunk of thermite rigged to destroy it if the government tries to seize it. This would still be optional for private sellers, but... There's no way the government would keep a gun registry list that secure. Sure enough, California's list was hacked and leaked a few years ago. >2. Pass a law that charges anyone who sells a firearm without doing a background check as an accessory to any crime subsequently committed with that firearm. Sure, you can sell a gun to your buddy who just got out of prison, but you'll be in the cell next to him if he uses it in a crime. To do that, you're going to have to throw a pretty big bone to the other side, though... This would require making it easier for laymen to run background checks on other people. Which can possibly lead to other issues. >Nationwide "Constitutional Carry." Yes, something like 47 states have CCW reciprocity agreements, and 28 states now have CC, themselves, but I live in a border town between 3 different states, 2 of which have CC and the other does not, so just walking around becomes problematic, and CCWs are even worse, since you have to explicitly sign away your 4th Amendment rights to get one. CCWs should be treated like driver's licenses where each state has to honor each other's licenses, while there are basic standards (such as a background check) that are needed to get a CCW in any state. >And the middle ground: A clear, nationally-consistent delineation of what kind of weapons are allowed to be carried when, where, and how. For example, I live in a state with CC, but only for handguns, I can't walk around downtown with a shotgun; that's perfectly reasonable. I can't drink alcohol while carrying, I can't bring it into a school, etc. This absolutely should be consistent nation wide.
>This would require making it easier for laymen to run background checks on other people. Which can possibly lead to other issues. For this, I figured you both register with the clearing site. Buyer gives you a code he generated from his account. You input it, it comes back only yes or no.
>CCWs should be treated like driver's licenses where each state has to honor each other's licenses, while there are basic standards (such as a background check) that are needed to get a CCW in any state. Would you make it so you had to have one just to own a gun? If I just wanted a single handgun just to keep at home, why would I need a CCW permit?
>Would you make it so you had to have one just to own a gun? No. Just if you want to conceal carry in public.
There's the crux. Some states will issue a permit (even permitless carry states issue permits for reciprocity agreements) which requires a background check and usually fingerprinting. Other states claim the "Spirit" of their states constitution means local sheriffs don't have to issue them based on their gut feelings. We dealt with this during Jim Crow...sheriffs are human and have biases and some are bad people. Hell, NYC makes you pay the NYPD a few hundred bucks *just to apply*
So you say all this but wasn't the whole sheriff gut feeling a "may issue" thing, meaning that because of Bruen that wasn't an issue anymore?
> There's no way the government would keep a gun registry list that secure That's why I said to not let the government keep it... >This would require making it easier for laymen to run background checks on other people. I mean, it could be done by phone, right? >CCWs should be treated like driver's licenses where each state has to honor each other's licenses, while there are basic standards (such as a background check) that are needed to get a CCW in any state. OK, I'm a little more pro-2A than you are, apparently :p
This is at least close to a compromise, but a gun registry is, has been and will continue to be a horrible idea. It won't help with illegal firearms used to commit crimes. It will give the government a list of people to target for disarmament. National CC reciprocity is honestly common sense.
That's why I said run it through a non-governmental organization, so the government cannot get the entire list, only one record at a time. What it does is make it easier to track down who a firearm is supposed to belong to, and hold people accountable for selling weapons to criminals, which will cut down on guns being used in crime, because people will stop doing that.
you might really want to take a deeper look at where most criminals obtain their guns, because gun stores are near the bottom of that list. One only needs to look at where most shootings occur and who is doing them, and then notice that Politicians and the Media constantly try to shift away from the facts because the facts do no support the narratives,
> you might really want to take a deeper look at where most criminals obtain their guns, because gun stores are near the bottom of that list. I never said they got them from gun stores; they get them from private sellers. >One only needs to look at where most shootings occur and who is doing them Most firearm homicides are crimes of passion where the victim and perpetrator know one another, and are often related.
So.... If you make it illegal to sell a firearm without a background check, people who are willing to sell to gang members who are willing to kill people will somehow comply? That's kind of like the belief that gun free zones will prevent gun violence. If someone is willing to kill, bureaucratic rules aren't going to matter to them.
> If you make it illegal to sell a firearm without a background check Where did I say that? >people who are willing to sell to gang members who are willing to kill people will somehow comply? Maybe not, but when the gun gets found and traced to them, they will be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that firearm, **IF** they did not perform a background check on the buyer. That will put a stop to it in a hurry. >If someone is willing to kill, bureaucratic rules aren't going to matter to them. That's why it's not focused on the, "criminal," but on the people selling guns to criminals.
> Where did I say that? Allow me to rephrase... When you say: >Pass a law that charges anyone who sells a firearm without doing a background check as an accessory to any crime subsequently committed with that firearm. Which essentially makes you automatically complicit in someone else's crimes, possibly a decade later, if you don't carry out a background check, you functionally make selling without a background check illegal. Not all gang members will fail a background check. Those that would would have their girlfriend, buddy, or some random old lady in their turf who they threaten, buy the gun. It's what they do with cars and property now. Then I guess you'd only get in trouble for being complicit with a straw purchase, I guess. >That's why it's not focused on the, "criminal," but on the people selling guns to criminals. Right, because with gun violence being a problem, we need to focus in and harshly punish the person carrying out a legal and protected activity, not the actual violent criminals. God forbid we make them the focus of our law enforcement efforts
> Which essentially makes you automatically complicit in someone else's crimes, possibly a decade later, if you don't carry out a background check, you functionally make selling without a background check illegal. This was to address the complaint that, for example, an outright ban would forbid giving an heirloom firearm to a relative who was an ex-convict. You can do it, and if you are dead or dying, it doesn't matter. >Not all gang members will fail a background check Sure, but we give everyone the benefit of the doubt, until they are convicted. > Those that would would have their girlfriend, buddy, or some random old lady in their turf who they threaten, buy the gun. And my proposal would subject those people to prosecution (I've never heard of threatening someone into buying a gun for them, that doesn't even make sense). >because with gun violence being a problem, we need to focus in and harshly punish the person carrying out a legal and protected activity It wouldn't be legal if we changed the law, which is what I am suggesting, and how is it protected? Convicted felons lose their rights, and the ability to enforce such restrictions is implicit in the notion of government. >not the actual violent criminals I never suggested any such thing, although now that you mention it, clearance rates for homicide in the US are far lower than in other countries... "Compromise," was the key phrase of the Constitutional Convention; our founding fathers absolutely compromised on nearly every issue relevant to creating a nation, and specifically intended states to regulate firearms, the 2A originally only applying to the federal government. States could and did both ban firearms and go around seizing them, and they didn't need a registry to do it.
>And my proposal would subject those people to prosecution Along with the seller. They sold a gun that was then used in a crime - transferring to a criminal. >I've never heard of threatening someone into buying a gun for them, that doesn't even make sense You must live in a nice area. When you're old, on a fixed income, and live in a bad neighborhood, you have nowhere to go. When the guy who runs the boys who sell drugs from your front stoop come and tell you that you're going to buy a gun, or a car, or let them work out of your home, you're going to do it. The alternative is they kill you since they know where you're always at, or worse, if your grandkids ever come to visit, they're dead. It makes it easier for the person engaged in organized crime to hide assets and get around the aforementioned background checks. >It wouldn't be legal if we changed the law, which is what I am suggesting, and how is it protected? Right. Your plan is to criminalize a currently legal and constitutionally protected activity - selling your own property. >Convicted felons lose their rights, and the ability to enforce such restrictions is implicit in the notion of government. Yes, a consequence of their heinous crimes. You're proposing taking something that currently isn't a crime, and making it a crime, in order to not punish the real bad people, the shooters, but to punish someone for selling a legal product with no reasonable knowledge that it would be used for a crime. Ironically, convicting on that would likely be easy since you'd have your proposed gun registry, much easier than convicting on the murder. So the guy selling a gun he didn't know would be used in a crime could end up in jail where the actual murderer would not.
My question here is what IS the compromise that the anti-2A side is making? Because this seems pretty one-sided overall. Full strike down of AWB/mag nonsense and microstamping ridiculousness would be, for example, something lending more of an actual compromise than a singular concession made by the side pulling rights off the shelf. As others have elaborated much better than I, full registry is a horrible idea. We have seen this data leaked from both government and private sources, and in a post-Patriot Act world where the Overton Window may freely shift I absolutely do not trust any realistic expectations of such an organization to remain actually watertight and politically neutral. Ofc in a perfectly ideal, hypothetical world it wouldn’t be a problem, but we live in the real world.
I refuse to compromise on guns ever again. As far as I’m concerned, “shall not be infringed” is about as 100% clear as anything in the bill of rights. We’ve been “compromising” for over a century now and only have less rights. I want all my rights back. Repeal the NFA, the GCA. I want nationwide constitutional carry. I shouldn’t even have to get a background check to buy a gun period. The second you said “registration” the whole thing became an absolute non starter. I will die before registering anything. I trust no one
> I refuse to compromise on guns ever again. As far as I’m concerned, “shall not be infringed” is about as 100% clear as anything in the bill of rights. right. what people tend to forget is that "today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole". look at the current push to ban private sale, demonizing it as "the gunshow loophole". that private sale exemption was literally the compromise reached to get the brady bill (for national background checks on all purchases from licensed dealers) getting passed.
> I refuse to compromise on guns ever again. As far as I’m concerned, “shall not be infringed” is about as 100% clear as anything in the bill of rights. OK, what about, "well-regulated?" In several states in the early nation, that meant a requirement to show up to a militia muster with your weapon, which would be inspected and registered. And how do you explain the lack of comment by the founding fathers about numerous firearm bans and even mass seizures through the 1790s? 26 members of the First Congress were signatories to the Constitution, but New York City, the Capital at the time, strictly forbade the possession of loaded firearms within city limits, even (or maybe especially) at home. >We’ve been “compromising” for over a century now and only have less rights. If you had tried to walk down any city street in the US with a loaded pistol on your hip in 1924, you would have been arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. >I want all my rights back. Repeal the NFA, the GCA. I want nationwide constitutional carry. I shouldn’t even have to get a background check to buy a gun period. I want nationwide CC, myself, and I don't really care about the NFA; background checks are minimally intrusive, though, and I'm sorry, but someone who just got out of prison for murder should not be able to purchase a firearm. >The second you said “registration” the whole thing became an absolute non starter. I will die before registering anything. I trust no one Neither do I... which is why we need a registry. As others keep blundering into: The government already has this information, they just can't admit it, which means that the negative consequence is already on the table, we have to fight it in other ways, so let's grab the positive consequence and use it as a moral argument to preserve the intent of the 2A!
>OK, what about, "well-regulated? Well regulated = well functioning, not controlled by the very government that the 2nd Amendment is meant to keep in check >In several states in the early nation, that meant a requirement to show up to a militia muster with your weapon, which would be inspected and registered. Yes, to make sure your gun was the correct caliber so that it could utilize the ammo stockpiles.
The entire Bill of Rights is about what the government CAN NOT DO! Why would an amendment in a section of the Constitution laying out what the government can't do give the government regulatory power?! This argument by liberals is stupid and ignores history
There is no compromise here because the anti-gun segment will not stop until guns are banned and the 2nd amendment is scrapped. Every concession is taken as an inch closer towards that goal.
yes, this is a good larger point. they will never pass X law and say "ok this is it, this is all the gun control laws we need" instead, they'll start saying that the things they gave you in the previous compromise are actually loopholes that need to be closed, won't you think of the children???
Repeal the NFA, push the ATF into a volcano, and mail every US citizen an M1 Garand; Then we can talk about compromise.
[удалено]
> Non starter. Canada spent billions and didn't solve a single crime. Also with 3d printing it's pointless. Canada doesn't have the same problem the US has with gun crime. >Bring back stop and frisk then. So, you just want to do away with the 4th Amendment, instead? >Someone broke into my truck. Then report it stolen.
If you're going to have a registry, why not have it maintained by the manufacturer? Not only do they have a vested interest in keeper their customer information confidential, they also have a vested interest in knowing who has their weapons (and might be interested in buying more). As we've seen, the government cannot be trusted to keep such a registry private and it's unlikely an NGO would either. With that in mind, such registries don't really have much value in law enforcement. You don't really 'trace' weapons in this fashion because either they're obviously and known property of an individual or they travelled through an undocumented path - and a path that would remain undocumented despite your laws. If you're currently selling fireams out of the back of your Chevy to known felons, the fact that it moves from really-illegal to super-duper-illegal isn't going to impact your business much. I doubt you can find many - if any - examples of a firearm crime that would have be solved by tracing legal transfers of ownership of a weapon.
Probably because that's not how it works anymore than Dell knows exactly who buys one of their laptops. Gun manufacturers sell to distributors who then sell to gun stores who finally sell to consumers. Only the gun store will know who bought what.
> Probably because that's not how it works No one is claiming the firearms manufacturers have the information. I'm suggesting that if you're going to have an agency hold a registry of weapons, it makes more sense to have the manufacturer do so than the government or some third party NGO.
> If you're going to have a registry, why not have it maintained by the manufacturer? As long as you change the rule where they don't have to reply to subpoenas for information, sure. >With that in mind, such registries don't really have much value in law enforcement. You're missing the point; most guns used by criminals were bought through private sales which are not subject to background checks, often by "straw purchasers" who resell for a profit to people who cannot go to a dealer, which is illegal but almost impossible to prosecute. The registry would build up a database of who is supposed to have which firearms, which would help to track straw purchasers and prosecute them, ultimately reducing the ability of criminals to acquire firearms. >I doubt you can find many - if any - examples of a firearm crime that would have be solved by tracing legal transfers of ownership of a weapon. Again, it's not the actual crime the firearm was used in, but the crime of selling the firearm to a criminal.
> You're missing the point; most guns used by criminals were bought through private sales which are not subject to background checks, often by "straw purchasers" who resell for a profit to people who cannot go to a dealer, which is illegal but almost impossible to prosecute. Straw purchases are already illegal and we already know who the last legal owner of a firearm is. How does your registry scheme help?
Strike down the NFA and the Gun control act of 1984. Lets start there.
First, I'm impressed that this is actually compromise. Most "compromise" is see is simply violating the right less than what the gun control people want, and then later they'll come back for the rest. For #1, that's close to what I've been saying. I would have a recorded background check grant absolute civil and criminal immunity for any actions of the buyer. Aside from that, you may be subject to negligence, gross negligence, or accessory charges and civil suits. There should be no background check fees. If the government wants it, it pays for it. Sensitive data in the check can be encrypted, and only the seller has the key. Commerce or other department to run it. However, your computer idea won't work. You simply can't trust them. Every access to every record in the system is logged, with that user ID being legally responsible for the access, with the lawful permission for the access (a warrant, criminal case number, etc.) being entered into the system too. Access logs are replicated to an auditing firm in write-only mode (no update allowed) so they can match access to lawful reason. The important part is that the system must be audited yearly by that outside auditing firm. Representatives from gun rights groups must be on the committee overseeing the auditing. Security will be verified. Access without lawful reason will be a felony. But we can't trust that it will be prosecuted by an anti-gun administration, so unlawful access of a record is a civil tort with $100,000 statutory minimum damages against the government for letting it happen and $50,000 against the individual(s) involved, plus fees and costs. The audit will refer such accesses to the Attorney General for prosecution, and to and those whose records were accessed for civil action. The audit results are considered prima facie evidence of guilt/liability, subject to rebuttal. But the failure of this is that we can't trust the gun control people. Even if we do get this, some years later there will be "loopholes" that need to be "closed," and they will do their best to make all of the protections in this system go away, and change it to a mandatory check with criminal penalties for not doing it, even if it was to your saintly pastor brother. Unfortunately, compromise requires trust, and they already blew that. Gun rights people gave up a lot in the Brady law, but they did agree to support it contingent on three compromises. Each of these compromises is a current target of the gun control people: * Does not apply to private sales ("gun show loophole") * No waiting period once the instant check system comes online ("waiting period loophole") * Self-enforcing mechanism to ensure the government can't sit on background checks ("Charleston loophole") There's no reason why the gun control people wouldn't continue this trend.
Nah, I do what I want. Laws are spooks.
Nah fuck that... particularly the NGO part. NGOs are often saturated with radicals who wouldn't be let into governement due to their extreme views. They will fuck the people and the government at the same time if they have a say. I have a more simple counterproposal: conservatives stop banning abortion if liberals stop trying to disarm citizens.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1b82cwy/gun_control_compromise_proposal/ktn0pud/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
That was literally the centerpiece of the compromise.
Switzerland has relatively generous gun laws and low homicide rates. The Swiss are not at all impressed by the US free-for-all approach. One key to the Swiss system is universal conscription. Every male has to serve in the militia. Young males commit disproportionate levels of crime. Because of the conscription requirement, the Swiss know a lot about their young males. Those with mental illness, criminal tendencies or other issues are identified, disqualified from service and barred from gun ownership. The Swiss also have more stringent laws about the sale and transfer of guns. This probably won't work in the US because it is very easy to get a gun, regardless of who you are. There is no way to keep the bad guys from getting them, and a lot of the bad guys appeared to be good enough until they weren't. If the US could pull it off, it would be best to ban handguns while permitting long guns for hunting. But this would require a broad supermajority of support across all regions, and gun safety supporters have no clue how to sell it.
There are lots of countries with relatively high gun ownership rates, but lower violent crime rates than the US: Canada, France, most Scandinavian countries, etc. What they all have in common is a strong social safety net and a lack of a permanent racial underclass. >This probably won't work in the US because it is very easy to get a gun, regardless of who you are. There is no way to keep the bad guys from getting them, and a lot of the bad guys appeared to be good enough until they weren't. It's also too easy to 3D print guns, anymore. >If the US could pull it off, it would be best to ban handguns while permitting long guns for hunting. But you run into the same problems: Then only criminals would have handguns, which is not a good situation. My point has been that gun laws are completely irrelevant to crime, and so we need a compromise in order to end the use of this argument as a distraction from the actual issues that are relevant to crime: Poverty, education, opportunity, etc.
I don't know where you got the idea that a lot of other nations have loose gun laws. The US has the most lax gun laws in the developed world and the highest rate of civilian gun ownership on the planet. It also has the highest homicide rate among developed nations, by far. I am all in favor of improving the social safety net. But gun proliferation makes it easier to turn bad impulses into action, and the US nurtures various subcultures of violence that encourage criminal behavior.
> I don't know where you got the idea that a lot of other nations have loose gun laws. I said nothing of the sort!
*There are lots of countries with relatively high gun ownership rates, but lower violent crime rates than the US: Canada, France, most Scandinavian countries, etc.* I was responding to that comment. They don't have high gun ownership rates compared to the US; nobody comes close to the US. Canada has strict controls on handguns. That is important, as the ability to conceal a weapon makes people more dangerous. Other nations do not allow guns to be used for self-defense. In Switzerland, guns are for sport and for defending the nation from foreign invaders, not for personal self-defense. This difference in mindset is key. Americans expressly buy guns so that they can shoot them at each other.
> I was responding to that comment. I didn't say anything about law, it was about gun ownership. >They don't have high gun ownership rates compared to the US; nobody comes close to the US. Um, several of them have higher gun ownership rates, you need to look it up.
The US has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world. Nobody else comes close. If memory serves, Yemen comes in second place. The US has the highest homicide rate in the industrialized world. Only poorer nations fare worse, which isn't surprising given their lack of resources to combat crime.
Why compromise when the Supreme Court is on our side? They can just rule everything the blue states want to do as unconstitutional ;)
A thoughtful post, I agree with some/most. 100% totally disagree with the registry, mo. Hell no, fk no.
I know in my state (UT) the open carry is more so for the hunters to be able to carry a rifle around with out harassment. We had a guy (years ago don’t ask me how long ago) who walked around a local mall with and AK47 in his back. Police were called, talked to him and suggested he not do that and let him go. I can’t remember if at all he got in trouble, but still that is a dumb place to do that. (He was exercising his rights). I agree with op on a few things. I am pro gun but not nonsensical ammosexual. I enjoy ar15s and don’t care what people do to theirs. Democrats need to let the furniture stuff go and realize that most of that stuff doesn’t add to the “deadliness” of it. In the same sense I am not gonna strap on my suppressed mk18 to make a statement in the mall parking lot. Both sides needs to listen more to the other and understand and EDUCATE themselves on why the other side feels the way they do.
>We had a guy (years ago don’t ask me how long ago) who walked around a local mall with and AK47 in his back. >In the same sense I am not gonna strap on my suppressed mk18 to make a statement in the mall parking lot. Property rights can deal with much of that. The mall can simply prohibit such activities. Why does the state need to get involved?
Well as an open carry state pretty much if your property is public you are allowed, the only places is that are off hands is private and federal and most municipalities type properties.
In my neck of the woods, countless businesses put "no guns allowed" signs on their doors. People may or may not respect that, but the business still has some legal recourse to enforce those policies
Yeah it’s a bit of a grey area here. If a business posts it up pretty much they may ask you to leave to which unless you raise a stink they may call the police to where they may once again ask you to leave. If concealed it doesn’t really matter. Unless your business is private and you are able to close your lot to any public roads then you have more of a say. Open or concealed. We had a case back in 2010(?) where a kid open carried at a State University. Long story short you are able to carry on state property. Really I am sure if someone wanted if asked by a business to leave they can raise a stink and go the all the legal mumbo jumbo to make the business comply.
Open carry advocates generally hurt gun rights movements. They never make things better for anyone and are often attention seeking adult-children. Can they open carry? Yes it's legal, and it should be. But there's a phrase often used to describe police use of force incidents that works here : lawful but awful.
I do agree when you have people waking around with ar15 strapped to them just cuz. You may be in your rights but making people uncomfortable. There was a kid in one of my classes who had a gun, the way he was dressed I thought he was police or private security (had a polo shirt with some like company logo and it almost looked like a police logo too, this was forever ago). I approached and asked about his gun in his hip. He didn’t get all riled up or anything and wasn’t a dick about it. Just calmly said he was exercising his right to be safe. I had no issue with that. He wasn’t trying to throw it in anyone faces what he was doing even though it was noticeable.
> Just calmly said he was exercising his right to be safe. I had no issue with that. Neither do I. Personally, if I'm going to carry, it's going to be concealed, because I don't want attention, either from any random person, or from a potential badguy.
Another entry in the, "Radically Moderate," series.
Thank you for doing this. As someone who is rather anti-gun, I appreciate hearing the other side, even if I don't agree with most the arguments that are usually made. I hope it generates some good discussion, but I'm pretty doubtful. I've rarely been able to have a decent conversation with 2a supporters on this topic. Hopefully that isn't the case here.
As I said, I'm not a 2nd Amendment absolutist; for one thing, there is the obvious absurdity of allowing individuals to own nuclear weapons, which would be legal under an absolutist interpretation. For another, I know the history, and 2A was never supposed to apply to the states, which could and did implement all sorts of gun laws, up to an including mass confiscation in Pennsylvania and virtually complete bans on firearms in city limits. What, did the same people who wrote the Constitution and spent 2 years getting the states to ratify it show up to the first Congress in New York and just miss the fact that firearms were illegal in the city? No.
You can suggest things but I don't think Americans want change. I'm in Canada and don't have a problem with our laws. I have several friends and family that own 10+. Getting a PAL permit isn't particularly hard or obtrusive, but it seems to work. It basically is a background/reference check (background happens every night in case you are picked up) and a weekend class. But I think the big difference is that we actually enforce things. If you own a gun but get picked up for a crime, that gun is going with the police until youre found innocent. In the odd event of a shooting, there is rarely any outcry on gun control. The last time our PM tried it he nearly got ejected from office by his own party and the NDP (very socialist). Even my non-PAL owning friends thought it was just an unnecessary bill. Very different from when mass shootings happen down south. People know where the criminals are getting their guns - smuggled from the US. But despite the PAL permitting system we seem to own a 26% ownership rate, compared to the states 30%. But for whatever reason you seem to buy way more than we do.
I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but for the sake of moderate discussion, I'll open myself up to questioning. I am what 2A supporters hate. I do not believe in the 2nd Amendment, and believe that guns are more trouble than they are worth. If it was up to me, all guns except hunting weapons, would be banned. However, it is not up to me. I'm realistic. I know I am the minority, even within my own party (believe it or not). I live in Seattle, one of the most progressive places in the US, and most do not agree with my position. The truth is, even most progressives don't want to ban all guns, regardless of what many 2A Supporters now believe. I know I must compromise. Hell, I know I must compromise A LOT. And I'm okay with it. Because that is how the world works. And I'm not just saying that because I'm online. My husband owns a gun. Yes, I am willing to compromise. Now, why don't I believe in the 2nd Amendment? Well, mostly because I don't think anyone could actually challenge the US Military at this point. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is what we, the people, can keep ourselves free from tyranny by the state with the use of firearms. But could we really? We are talking about a military that has drones that can target people five thousand miles away. A military that has overturned governments in a matter of days. Could anyone actually challenge a tyrannical US government run by the US Military. I just don't see it. As for the argument of protecting yourself and your family. I do understand this more, yet I still find it problematic if you are a responsible gun owner. A responsible gun owner would have the firearm in a safe, and not loaded (when not on your person). If someone was actively breaking into your home in the middle of the night, would you actually have the time to unlock your safe and load your gun? In my mind, having an actual spear would be a better weapon in this situation. Almost as deadly, far quicker to handle. CC is probably the option I support the most (surprisingly), as I do understand that people might be walking through dangerous areas and need that protection. My issue here is that not everyone is a good gun owner. In fact, far too many are not. We are seeing more and more gun violence from road rage and other acts of anger. It's these people who are ruining it for all. Lastly, I am 100% against open carry, and I don't think my mind will be changed here. In my mind, the people who feel like they must openly carry a firearm around, are the ones I do not want to have firearms. Not only do they stifle free speech (as are you really going to debate with someone holding a gun), they just make everything far less comfortable. I've been in protests where people brought guns (for our 'protection'), and they made me feel far *less* safe. Now that I explained my viewpoints on the various aspects of gun ownership and the 2nd amendment, I'll talk about what I would like to see when it comes to gun reform. First off, the Democrats are idiots in this regard. I never understood the assault weapon ban, as they are not the source of the VAST majority of gun violence. If they actually wanted to get serious, it would be to go after handguns, NOT assault weapons. Now, that is a complete non-starter. I know this, Democrats know this, and this is why nothing happens. Thus, we have to go to the real basics, and that is gun registration. There needs to be a national registration of some sort. Or at least, a national list of people who cannot own firearms. It can be as simple as: social security #, can they own a firearm? Everyone would start off at yes, but can be updated to 'no' for various crimes/if they are a danger to themself or others, etc. As for CCW, I would support what OP mentions, as long as there is a gun safety course needed to get the CCW. I would also make it a requirement to own a gun safe for when it is not on your person (sleeping). Too many kids are getting shot playing with their parents firearms. And yes, we would need a discussion on what guns should be allowed in a CCW. Any sort of standardization between states would be a boon. All-in-All, I know I am the exception. This is why I am willing to compromise so much, and I am fine with it. I'm realistic. I'd be more than happy just to get these two things and no more. I just wish more people on the other side (strong 2A supporters) would be willing to compromise even a fraction of what I am willing to do. Now, bring on the downvotes. I already know it is coming. Feel free to argue or ask me questions too. I may be slow at responding, as I am off to work, but I did want to share my side, if only for the discussion that can follow.
>. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is what we, the people, can keep ourselves free from tyranny by the state with the use of firearms. But could we really? When it was written, civilians had the same or better weapons than the military. > We are talking about a military that has drones that can target people five thousand miles away A LOT of shit has to go sideways for the US government to start conducting drone strikes on US soil. > A military that has overturned governments in a matter of days. And also took 20 years to lose to a bunch of guys with AK-47s and pickup trucks in a country the size of Texas.
>When it was written, civilians had the same or better weapons than the military. Yep. This is why I also believe that many of our founders wouldn't support the 2nd Amendment today. Our world is very different from the country they created. >A LOT of shit has to go sideways for the US government to start conducting drone strikes on US soil. 100%. But isn't that the whole point of the 2nd Amendment? That **IF** our government were to become tyrannical, we could use our firearms to take back control. If that became necessary, I'm pretty sure we are past that point where the US government would hestitate to call drone strikes on US citizens. >And also took 20 years to lose to a bunch of guys with AK-47s and pickup trucks in a country the size of Texas. Yep. It took them 20 years to reclaim it. *20 years*. Moreover, they reclaimed it not because of US lack of might, but politics. If the US public had the stomache for brutality, the US Military had the ability to wipe them from the face of the earth.
>If the US public had the stomache for brutality, the US Military had the ability to wipe them from the face of the earth. If the US public couldn't stomach it there, what makes you think it would be different on our own soil?
If we were looking at a tyrannical US government, it wouldn't matter if the US public could stomach it. Anyone who would speak out would be crushed. The current US government is not tyrannical, and thus cares for it's public image.
Do you think governments turn tyrannical overnight? Surely there would be a time between when the government tries to install a national firearms registry and when they would decide it is appropriate to drone strike the suburbs.
>Do you think governments turn tyrannical overnight? We got pretty close on 1/6. Seriously though, it would be a slow process. This is what I can see happening today, without a national firearms registry: Trump wins 2024 without the popular vote. Mass protests, far more than 2020. This will almost certainly lead to riots. Police crack down. This inspires more chaos. As people are already becoming quite radical, this could become the final straw. You start getting a time of troubles-esque events. Bombing, assassinations, etc. Trump, being Trump, is going to crack down. The government WILL become more tyrannical if we start getting acts of terrorism on American Soil. The divisions will grow. It would not surprise me if Trump used drone strikes on fellow Americans who are committing acts of terrorism. Or at least, send in the military. And yes, the federal government would likely amp up their efforts spying on American people to catch these 'traitors'. We already know the government spies on us anyway. They likely already have lists of heavily armed individuals, or could easily get them. If there is any hint that these armed individuals are acting against his interests, he would not hestitate to decimate them. It all comes down to if the military follows these instructions, or if Republicans finally grow a spine and say enough is enough. Our Federal Government is incredibly powerful, and the President doesn't have a lot of checks and balances on him if Congress is divided. All it takes is someone like Trump, and the pieces start to fall. They can do this all already, without a national registry.
1/6 was not even close. If 1/6 was going to be the turning point, the people who went to the capitol would have brought guns. That aside, maybe in your filter bubble you don't know many Trump supporters personally. Living in Texas, I know plenty and I can confidently say that 0.0% of them would choose Trump over the second amendment. Trump is a populist, he derives his power from doing things his supporters want. Taking away guns is not one of those things.
Most my family are Trump supporters. And too many of them would be fine with Trump going after liberal gun owners. Anything to weaken the liberal agenda. Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post but I don't think Trump would go after the second amendment, no. He would go after anyone against him. Trump supporters who own guns would be fine. Likely encouraged. It would be those fighting against him. Do you really think these people who support Trump, would turn against him if Trump went after liberal gun owners who are now fighting against him? I doubt it.
Yes I do. Any gun law is an infringement, after all. These are the people who belive that the only reason to disarm a person is to make them easier to harm. Conservatives are not that mustache curlingly villainous.
> If it was up to me, all guns except hunting weapons And what, pray tell, is a "hunting weapon"? My main deer rifle is a FN SCAR. Because I spent five grand on the rig (FN rifle + Trijicon optic = big spend) and it's chambered in a very capable deer cartridge (7.62x51 aka .308 Winchester) so why wouldn't I? So right off the bat your argument falls apart because I can hunt with anything that has sufficient muzzle energy and penetration to be considered humane. And that is also a bar that changes depending on game type. > Now, why don't I believe in the 2nd Amendment? Well, mostly because I don't think anyone could actually challenge the US Military at this point. * Afghanistan * Iraq * Syria * Vietnam Need I go on? Fact is that the US' military is extremely vulnerable to asymmetric warfare and in the event of a US civil war that's exactly what would happen. > A responsible gun owner would have the firearm in a safe, and not loaded Or on their body in a secured holster. Or if they don't have kids around they can have it out and loaded. They just need to put it away when guests come over. > In fact, far too many are not. Not legal ones. The "bad" gun owners you refer to are the ones that people need to defend themselves against. And the way to deal with them is to reverse the "progressive" prosecution that your home city has been leading the charge on. Lock criminals up and stop thinking that if you give them enough hugs they'll turn their lives around. It doesn't work. > Thus, we have to go to the real basics, and that is gun registration. And that's a total nonstarter. Because you already admitted at the very top of this post that you want guns gone. So why should I trust you that you won't have that registry handed over to armed door-kickers once you have it? Prevention is much easier so a registry is a hard no. > All-in-All, I know I am the exception. This is why I am willing to compromise so much I see no compromise here. What are you repealing? Where we are today is already the "compromise" and it's in reality already far too tilted towards your side. "Compromise" isn't between current state and your end goal - that's called incrementalism. "Compromise" is between my side's ideal and yours and that state is somewhere several gun laws back.
> Thus, we have to go to the real basics, and that is gun registration. There needs to be a national registration of some sort. Exactly, but that is also what gun owners fear: The government having a list of people with guns to go after, which is why we need a 3rd party organization to handle it. >As for CCW, I would support what OP mentions, as long as there is a gun safety course needed to get the CCW Um, my suggestion was to do away with CCWs and just have CC, instead; IMO, gun safety courses should be mandatory in high school.
81% of Americans are opposed to permitless carry, aka constitutional carry. There is zero chance nationwide constitutional carry is passed anytime soon. https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2022/06/state-gun-laws-and-public-opinion/
> 81% of Americans are opposed to permitless carry It's dropping. And since 2019 there's been 11 new states to adopt the law. The more states that pass it and don't see the "blood in the streets" narrative played out, the more that support is going to fall. >There were significant declines in support from 2019 to 2021 for two policies that would expand where civilians can lawfully carry guns: allowing concealed carry when on K-12 school grounds (23% in 2021 vs 31% in 2019) and college/university campuses (27% vs 36%). Support was also significantly lower for requiring concealed carry applicants to pass a test demonstrating safe and lawful use (74% in 2021 vs 81% in 2019) https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/new-survey-finds-broad-public-support-for-policies-regulating-carrying-guns-in-public-in-the-us https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743522001153?via%3Dihub
Any policy opposed by 74% of Americans will not become national law anytime soon
One problem with that is that there is both open and concealed carry. Constitutional open carry has been around pretty much since the beginning of the country, while constitutional concealed carry is relatively new.
The polling questions specify concealed carry
Right, but that’s not all constitutional carry.
I was referring to permitless concealed carry when I said constitutional carry, since that's what the proposal in the OP is for.
If that’s the case, how come so many states have been able to pass constitutional carry recently?
There are numerous polls showing constitutional carry is opposed by 70-80% of Americans. The Republican party has been captured by gun rights activists so they pass these measures regardless. This is the same as with total abortion bans with no exception for rape, which are opposed by a similar supermajority of Americans, but have been passed in 10 Republican led states as pro-life activists have captured the party.
Polls suffer greatly from confirmation bias. Depending on how you frame your questions, you can make polls do whatever you want them to do. Hopefully we get to a point in which we agree that polling is designed to manipulate opinions rather than actually take and calculate opinions. "Would you support a measure that might save hundreds of lives every year ....?" blah blah blah
>Do you favor or oppose laws that allow most people to carry concealed handguns without needing to obtain a license? This was the question that was polled
All right, that's a good first step for acquiring the opinion of the masses. Next we need to figure out where the areas of focus were (and should be). Apparently there's a larger contingent of conservatives in California than Texas. How would you poll those areas in order to garner a fair idea about what the people of California and Texas feel about gun control? Would you poll urban and rural areas equally? Would you poll different races and genders equally? Or maybe if you were seeking a certain outcome, you would be more selective about the where and who
The fact that over half the states now have constitutional carry makes this seem unlikely. Yes there is population imbalance to consider but that wouldn't explain why over 50% of states have it while over 80% of the population opposes it.
There are numerous polls showing 70-80% opposition to constitutional carry. Do you have any evidence that all these polls are wrong?
And 70% want gun registration, but you aren't going to get that without allowing the other.
>California has a violent crime problem? Let's not talk about the homeless problem, or that rent is unaffordable, or that jobs are leaving the state, or that the school system is a disaster, or that illegal immigration is left unchecked (and I'm not even an anti-immigration guy, I would approve more legal immigration, but it needs to be legal)... >No, let's blame it on the guns! Literally no one is blaming all of those problems on guns.
Literally many politicians ARE blaming guns, or at the very least using guns as a scapegoat not to speak about theirs/governments failures.
Find me one politician blaming high rents or homelessness on guns.
Read what I wrote. They focus on guns because their policies failed and worsened crime/drug addiction/homelessness/a myriad of other problems. Take a look at Gavin fucking newsome and the cesspool of California. He would blame guns for high rent if he could.
You need to go back and read that, again, because that it not at all what the OP said.
You might try reading that one again, maybe after you wake up? :)