Not any federal bills I’m aware of. But several states have annual registrations (with fees) on firearms people already own.
If I gave the impression that I thought this would be quick and easy, I apologize. The drastic and heroic efforts on the part of the civil rights movement did not spring up suddenly, the groundwork had been laid down for generations. How long was the time between the first inkling of the labor movement and the New Deal?
I hate being patient, but if I have no other choice, then I must. Maybe my efforts and yours are entirely futile, maybe its not worth it, and I am simply too stupid and too stubborn to realize it. Perhaps someday I’ll just give up and recline into the blissful nihilism of sweet bugger all. Maybe, someday, you will too.
Someday, maybe. But not today.
This is as good a thread as any to bring this up, I guess, but you’ve been beating the licensing and registration drum for a number of months now, and I’m not sure how much you understand that this is a complete non-starter. I’m currently spending a week in a very conservative part of the country, surrounded by conservatives, and I’ve had the pleasure of overhearing lots of conversations about gun control. These folks are all extremely overjoyed that the senate’s background check bill was voted down, and the #1 reason by far is that background checks would lead to registration, and registration leads to confiscation. Hands down, this is the talking point. And most of these people don’t even own guns! They’re not gun nuts or even what I’d consider gun rights advocates. Just your typical overtly political conservatives who get their news from Drudge, Beck, or Fox.
This is why this thread is so ironic. Even a background check bill, which 30 years ago would have received near universal support, and even now sould be a slam dunk, is opposed because half of the country refuses to have a reasonable conversation about guns. Please note that this is a background check bill which explicitely forbade the creation of a registry. It boggles the mind. There are valid reasons to have opposed the proposed piece of legislation, but the majority of people I’ve listened to pick the one reason that’s complete horseshit.
No matter how much you or I or anyone else wants universal licensing and a national registry, it’s a non-starter. I think you know this, but I’m not sure you understand how powerful and irrational the opposition to even the slightest hints of this idea truly are.
It’s a completely rational position to oppose background checks if you believe it will embolden gun control advocates and you want to oppose those same gun control advocates. People have to think, shit we couldn’t even get background checks, no way we are going to get registration. If you are against registration, then you’ve sent a powerful message by rejecting even background checks.
It’s not irrational because you disagree.
If your goal is to prevent a national gun registry, and you oppose a law that makes a national gun registry illegal on the grounds that said law might lead to a national gun registry, “irrational” is absolutely the appropriate word to use.
If you are referring to the latest Toomey-Manchin bill, then:
That entire page reeks of paranoia, and the conclusion that you chose to quote is highly irrational. And absurd. And are you serious?
A very reasoned response, perfectly consistent with the thread. And I know you’re serious.
On the other hand, it isn’t rational if you actually support universal background checks. Which 90% of the population does.
Maybe you should be thinking about how to balance the right to own a firearm with a quite reasonable desire to keep guns out of the hands of felons and madmen in order to protect the public safety, rather than what laws would make those you disagree with happy or sad.
It’s like this: I don’t want the minimum wage to go up because I like sticking it to conservatives. I want the minimum wage to go up to make life better for those at or near the minimum wage. (Whether it would succeed or not is a topic for another thread. This is an example of how to properly approach an issue.)
Similarly, I’ve got nothing against sane, law-abiding citizens having guns for hunting or personal protection. But I’d like to keep guns out of the hands of felons and insane people. I don’t care about sticking it to the NRA or the gun nuts. I just figure it might save a few lives, y’know? And it’s hard to see how keeping guns out of the hands of felons and crazies restricts your rights, unless you fall into one of those groups.
What I hear you saying is that you don’t want any conversation about guns, reasonable or not, other than, “We’re not giving an inch. Bye.”
Saying that the amendment doesn’t go far enough because it only applies to offices under the AG and then only to current FFL holders is one thing. We’re still in reasonable discussion territory.
I want to point out that none of the conservatives I referenced earlier said anything even close to this, for what it’s worth, but if that’s the argument you intended to make, then that’s fine.
Saying that the amendment is actually more gun contol cleverly disguised to look like exactly the thing that anti-gun control people want is absurd. I don’t know of a reasonable way to respond to such an argument, other to say “nuh uh.” Therefore, we’ve left reasonable discussion territory.
Hentor - agree, that would be irrational to support universal background checks and oppose the latest bill - unless there were other provisions of the bill that you opposed more strongly.
I don’t want most felons or insane people to have firearms. The proposed bill would not have accomplished that goal. A not uncommon thinking is that increasing restrictions or hurdles on gun ownership and possession has the potential to restrict the rights of otherwise law abiding folks in that it emboldens other gun control advocates to push and pursue additional restrictions and hurdles.
I’m waiting to hear the reasonable conversation. What concessions are gun control advocates willing to make in order to achieve their goals of universal background checks? And yes, without any concessions, I wouldn’t personally advocate giving an inch.
I think the intent of the bill was to restrict the possibility of a registry. I think the language of the bill would have accomplished the opposite. It was poorly written, and would not have accomplished its stated goals of universal background checks. The protections it purported to have were counter productive and opened the possibility for the opposite effect. So yes, it was a bad bill and I’m glad it did not pass.
Could we start a nationwide program of sending Hallmark cards saying “Pretty please, don’t shoot anyone today”?
And in return, we will force PBS to include an NRA friendly character to Sesame Street, to give young pre-schoolers a more positive attitude towards firearms?
No? Oh, I see your point, the cards would be delivered by the Postal Service, and they are uniformed employees of the Federal government who sometimes wear boots. Plus, it might lead to a national database of addresses.
What? You’re OK with the Sesame Street idea? If we make a further concession?
OMG! Then a democracy might break out!
Gun advocates should be proud that they protected the older Boston bomber’s right to buy guns even though he was on a no-fly list as a potential terrorist. I would sure hate it if their options had been limited to just cookware. At least this way he COULD have bought guns if he wanted to.
I’ll take it to the other thread.
I’ve watched every episode (even if only in the background) and I think she is right about most things but I think she is wrong about guns.
The general rules do not apply to this issue, in fact they are almost backwards.
I don’t know where you went but I am in Northern Virginia and I talk to Virginia gun owners and they are all resistant to the idea of a national license and registry until I explain why their fears are unjustified unless they think that the political landscape of the country generally will start to resemble California. I think, there is no way we ever confiscate guns on a national level but I am convinced that (at least anecdotally) you could get people to grudgingly go along with licensing and registration if you had federal preemption of gun laws, a national CCW, open up the NFA registry to surplus M-16s, apply HIPAA type safeguards to the registry and an explicit prohibition on confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens.
I’ve even gone to the trouble of telling them what sort of concessions they should be able to live with 
and they don’t seem ready to jump on the wagon.
Here’s the thing, without compromise, we end up exactly where we are with criminals having easy access to guns. Neither side wants that.
I’m a bit skeptical that you’ve managed to permanently change anyone’s mind, but if it’s true, my hat’s off to you. I must not be nearly as persuasive as you. After all, everyone knows that the explicit prohibition on confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens will be overturned 5 minutes after everyone stops paying attention to the issue. And you know what happens next? Confiscation.
I don’t think Republicans want criminals to have easy access to guns, but I’m not convinced that they want to do anything about it.
The NRA’s been working at the state level (with some success) to get guns back in the hands of felons who’ve served their time, and if it’s upset anyone in the GOP, they’ve been pretty quiet about it.
Oh I forgot, it’s only democracy when legislatures enact laws you agree with. Again, a totally apt post for this thread.
Oh, on the no fly list. He should have just been sent to Gitmo I guess. Due process and innocent until proven guilty are such quaint notions.
I can’t remember the last time you’ve added anything substantive to a discussion.
I find it bordering on delusional that you think placed like NY, NJ, and CA would ever go along with anything resembling what you’ve described from a legislative point of view. I live in CA. It’s never going to happen. We may get some favorable court rulings that force the hand of those places, but what you suggest will never happen from the legislature. And that being the case, why compromise at all? It’s all or nothing from the courts.
You say it wouldn’t be like CA. I’m in CA. Criminals still have easy access to guns. Why you have confidence that gun control advocates will ever stop is beyond me.
I usually have a gun when I make these arguments, maybe that helps.
The toughest part has been convincing them that licensing and registration will do any good. Until you do that, there is cost but no benefit.
You dont need unanimity to pass a law. You need a majority of the House and 60 votes in the Senate. California can go pound sand while its gun regulations become void.
I think you might have misread me or I miswrote. I was saying that in order for us to get confiscation at a national level, the political landscape of the entire country would have to look like California.