Just FYI, assault* rifles *are already effectively banned in the USA, as they can go full auto. They have never been legal (without a very hard to get and expensive federal permit). Ignorance fought.
What’s a 'assault weapon" then? Whatever some politician sez it is. Usually a perfectly ordinary semi-auto rifle that has been outfitted with a flash suppressor, bayonet lug and the like, so as it looks scary.
Not vs several opponents or vs thugs with a gun.
And altho a bow is Ok for certain game, it’s very hard to down game birds, ducks, etc with one.
Yes, I have said this very thing. Making anyone who sells more than five guns a year (I’d make the number a little higher, but not higher than 12) into a “dealer” under the law is a great idea. The strawman sellers who are not dealers have to be stopped. Look, see- I am suggesting stronger gun laws!
But it does display her basic ignorance of the laws she wants to change. You can’t “remove and take away the licenses of gun dealers who fail to follow the law.” if they dont have a license. And if they DO have a license, they have to file and do background on any number of guns sold, even a single gun. It’s amazing that a woman who has been DA, AG and has put into effect one big time gun law in CA, and wants to issues executive orders on guns- doesnt understand that basic point.
Yes, and we have had this very conversation before, several times in fact iirc. It’s called a 'strawman sale".
I believe what I said above was banning handguns and semi-auto rifles. You get to keep shotguns and rifles that aren’t semi-auto.
For the record, giving up ZERO of your guns isn’t a compromise either.
What compromise law are you envisioning that allows everyone who has guns to keep them, yet somehow reduces the number of deaths from guns? Because, as I’ve said in other threads, I don’t really care what you own, I care that people are dying in huge numbers. If the law doesn’t reduce deaths it doesn’t interest me.
How do you make someone who sells more than 5 (12) guns a year into a dealer if they are not required to document the sales in the first place?
As a humorous aside, when I served on a Grand Jury (in NJ) we had an “assault weapon” crime before us, and I asked the ADA to define an assault weapon, in no small part because of threads like this. Hoo Boy! The ADA must have had a bug up her ass because she spent the next 5 minutes reading a list of individual models of rifle followed up by “and other firearms substantially similar to the above.” I heard a rumor that the “drug paraphernalia” list is even longer.
Well, if I don’t ask you, then I don’t have any reason to believe you are not allowed to purchase a gun.
or “Hey, is it legal for you to buy a gun?” “Yep!” “Ok, here’s mine!”
It’s a crime, how you go about skirting law doesn’t concern me. My point is that sellers are knowingly breaking the law, and administrations going back as far as Clinton do nothing or very little about it.
When they have the same people buying lots of handguns and then selling them, there is clearly a problem. If they were a legitimate dealer, they would get an FFL, purchase at wholesale and actually run a legit business.
Perfect example of straw purchases with little to no consequences.
For the record, there have been plenty of guns that have been given up via one ban or another, one misguided law or another, or labeled as “non sporting” so banned from import since 1934 so don’t be too proud of that “gotcha”. It’s not. Giving up firearms in the name of compromise has already been done multiple times.
I’ll get to this later today. I already wrote a book on a national firearms license. That’s a good start. If you don’t think that’s a compromise, tell me what other constitutional rights you have a permit for.
That guy got in trouble for BUYING guns, not selling them. And I say sellers are NOT breaking the law, because the law does not require them to make sure the person buying is legally allowed to buy.
The first bullet from the ATF says otherwise. I’ll check WI law later.
I find it hard to believe you want to argue about this. He conducted at least 27 straw purchases. Lied on at least the same number of Federal documents yet was put on probation due to his budding rap career. WTF?
The honest answer is , I already knew he did not know. But aside from that , that he didn’t care as his only agenda is to ban as many guns as he can.
So no, there is no ‘debating’ that.
Wait what problem are you trying to solve? If the problem you are trying to solve is gun related deaths (or gun related crimes) , the answer isn’t necessarily that I have to give up anything.
If you are fighting for a different ideal than the one mentioned, say like, taking guns away from lawful citizens, that’s fine but we are continually told that no one wants to do that.
Why should us, the law abiding citizens, give up any of our guns? The compromise is measures that help to prevent criminals from getting guns.
That is a compromise, no question about it.
I don’t think a license alone attacks the problem of firearm deaths, so I wouldn’t bother with implementing one if it isn’t coupled with another system that more effectively prevents guns from getting into criminal hands.
That’s the problem I want to solve. I have observed that there are countries who have solved this particular problem. The answer for them, the answer that worked, is that you have to give up something.
If you think there’s some other way to do it, fine, do that instead. But understand, it needs to work, and work comparably as well as the other answer does in other countries for me to be satisfied.
Which would be great, if the shoes were on the other feet. It is currently up to you and those who believe as you do to propose, and for us to agree or disagree (collectively)
Here’s the thing- those other nations aren’t the uSA. They never had a gun culture, they never had 300 million guns.
Now yes, the USA has too many murders, but overall, we are smack dab in the middle of all nations (no cherry picking). Too much gun violence, sure, but compared to other things, it’s not that big of a problem.
10000 murdered a year by guns= too many (but also about the same number that died by drunk drivers.) But compared to 500,000 killed by tobacco, (50000 of which are innocent NON-smokers), 90,000 from alcohol, 70,000 from durg (of which 20000 were prescription drugs) and so forth. In a nation of 300 million people, 10,000 isnt really that much.
So let’s ban smoking first. That will save 50 times as many lives. No constitutional issues. No useful uses of tobacco. Just ban it.
Nothing is going to happen unless we agree collectively.
Really, when you get down to brass tacks, I don’t want to take away your guns, I can’t take your guns even if I wanted to.
I want you to give up your guns.
I want you to realize that the last 50 years of our history, with 10-20 thousand gun murders a year (and twice that many suicides), is not going to change unless the guns themselves go away.
Fine, we can ban tobacco tomorrow, and start on guns this coming Monday*.
I’d ban cars too, but I kind of like a functioning economy, so they can stay until self driving cars eliminate 99% of accidents.
*Although… let’s be honest… we’re probably ALL better off getting the guns away from smokers before we ban tobacco.