Because we just never talk about it here. 
Shoot some holes in this for me, if you please. Specifically, what makes the following untenable, and what alterations would you make (And no, “Scrap it you gun-snatching commie bastard!” isn’t acceptable without considerable elaboration, cites, and rationale).
What is an “open-market” weapon sale or ammunition sale?
“I want a gun. Think I’ll head over to the sporting goods store / Gun Shop / Gun Show and get one.” Shopping and 20 minute background screen later, I am armed and ready to shoot anything from paper targets to 1st graders.
Similarly: my rifle is hungry, today I can head over to Cabella’s or Wal*Mart and get however much of whatever I want, as long as I am 18+.
It has been nearly forty years since the “Revolt at Cincinnati”. Since then, we have had nearly non-stop pro-gun marketing and PR initiatives to get this point.
Legislation will not reverse that - only social change (and perhaps an effective marketing/PR campaign) that makes it unpopular to own guns.
Well, it didn’t take long for you to get completely offensive. But in the interests of honest discussion, what would the new procedure be for purchasing a firearm?
To purchase a new firearm: Show current hunting license, and game tag(s), get favorable response to the already-existing & annoying 20 minute FBI check, buy appropriate firearm, pay registration fee.
(Who got offensive? Me? How?)
Why would I need a hunting license in order to purchase a gun for home defense?
The plan is clearly unconstitutional, but are we supposed to gloss over that point?
I think the premise of this thread as better suited to Great Debates, even though, as the OP points out, it has been discussed previously.
Relocating from IMHO.
which is effectively a ban. This would both drive prices into the stratosphere, and really pump up the black market.
See previous.
Now you have to define what is a suitable “hunting weapon.”
That’s an arbitrary number. especially since taking a deer shouldn’t need more than one round, but birds/waterfowl could be more than 10.
why don’t we just force people to keep their guns in lockers at the range while we’re at it? How are you going to prevent people from taking ammo away from the range?
not feasible until you get everyone and their firearms registered.
since I live in Michigan and my handguns are effectively registered, I’m not necessarily opposed to this. But the devil is in the details.
buybacks are worthless. Nobody who actually wants to own firearms is going to turn them in for a pittance. The only thing buybacks do is collect barely-functioning junk, or late grandpa’s old hunting rifle that nobody in the family wants.
even the Heller decision didn’t say the government was barred from placing any restrictions on firearm ownership. Most individual rights have limitations. Not all speech is protected, the press doesn’t have carte blanche to write whatever they want, etc.
As a Wisconsin Conservation Patron license holder, I have “licenses” to hunt small game, pheasants, deer, turkeys (two seasons), geese, and ducks. So using your rules I could still buy at least seven guns per year, and probably many more because there are over 15 different animals that a small game license allows you to hunt. I could also buy hunting licenses online from any number of states and use those to purchase additional firearms.
So there are a few holes there if the intent is to reduce firearm sales.
You know, I don’t want people who know nothing about evolution or science telling me what text books I should or shouldn’t be using, and I also don’t want people who know nothing about shooting or hunting to attempt legislation.
For example, when proposing such a thing, you should realize that a completely arbitrary 10 round limit is not only pointless and dumb, but actively harmful. You can easily use more than 10 rounds just sighting in a scope, and avoiding to do so can mean shooting an animal in a non-lethal area, causing pain and suffering. If you extend this to self-defense, then being unable to actively train with a weapon means that the person is not only unable to effectively defend themselves or their families, but may be a harm to others when they don’t know how to or can’t properly aim a weapon.
What about recreational shooters? You said they’d still be able to own guns under your scheme. What about home defense buyers?
The 1st graders crack. If you want to have an actual useful, serious discussion, that’s not particularly helpful. If you want to score points against gun owners, then have at it, I guess.
What do you plan to do about the 300-400-half a million, guns all ready owned in the US?
The 300 million guns in the US has been a number used since at least 2008. it is an old number.
The NICS background checks are the only tracking system for gun purchases that we have, and background checks are running about 20 million each year. 11 million so far this year, without the June numbers, so 5 months so far. Since these checks are done at the point of sale, they can be reliably used to approximate the sales of guns.
From the FBI:
The US is not Australia, nor is it a mini-country/state in Europe. It is big and wide and there are millions, and millions, and millions, (repeat 500 times) of legally owned guns that are just not going to be turned in. Turned in to illegal weapons maybe, but not turned in to the government.
You are going to need a much different government, a compliant citizenry, and a large number of these guns, instead of being held in the ownership of legally compliant citizens will just be transferred to the criminal element or stored by the formerly legal owners.
Your solution will create a much bigger problem, one that does not yet exist.
You mean, aside from the fact that you have no understanding the purpose of the Second Amendment and why people support it, which means you have no chance understanding why this is politically non viable?
Whether you like it or not, whether you want it to be true or not, and whether it’s still, a good idea in 2016 or not, the purpose of the second amendment, as it was enacted by the framers, was precisely to allow private citizens to have in their possession the kinds of military grade guns that are used to shoot and kill other people, and potentially put a check on federal power. This was all extremely clear at the time the Constitution was passed, and again, whether you like it or not, and whether or not you or I think times have changed pretty radically since the 1780s, a large portion of the country still thinks this is a good idea.
Carving out room for hunters and target shooters misses the whole point of the second amendment, and shows you don’t even understand the arguments being made against you.
Frankly, pro-gun-control people would be much better off just saying what they really think: the Second Amendment, as it was written, is obsolete in 2016 and we need to amend it. There is a credible argument to be made there, and it at least would have the benefit of being honest.
Remind me: what did the Heller decision say about the use of firearms for self-protection?
The discourse would not change one iota. If you don’t believe me, open up a new thread with just that proposal and the arguments you think are credible that support it, and see if the discourse is any better.
I would like to offer a compromise on assault weapons. They should be legal to use on a range, but not anywhere else. There are cars that are not street-legal, but can be driven on racetracks. I think we should take a similar approach with AR-15s and the like.
What definition of “assault weapon” would you use?
How about everything that fits the definition? Wiki has a pretty extensive article on it