When will national gun control reform happen?

[dead0man]

Never. The ammosexuals with their gun fetishes have bought too much of our Federal Government. Only hope now falls to the reasonable and sensible states,

Like  those in California?

The line you conveniently chopped out was there for a reason and it looks like the attackers in California used a loophole to get their weapons. Hopefully California closes it before more ammosexuals and terrorists take advantage of it.

Ok, what federal laws do you propose.  Do you, like the NY Times, want to ban the specific rifles used this week?

[Gass3268]

Never unless you want to A. lose elections (which is the main reason in the south Reps control state and local gov)

or 

B. Start the 2nd American civil war


I never understood why liberals want to strip constitutional right to bare arms , yet fights for rights of illegals .

What about C. Revert it completely to the states?  Let CA/MA/NY make possession a felony if they really want to, and let TX/OK/WY have no more restrictions on guns than on homegrown food if they desire.  I would offer a package deal with abortion if necessary.  It would be specified that no one could be prosecuted back home for what they did out-of-state, and there is basically an established Privileges or Immunities right to interstate travel.  Deal?

What part of   

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Do libreals not understand?

One of the first things Tyrannical governments do is to disarm the people.

No one is saying that the National Guard, aka today's militias, should be disarmed.

[Gass3268]

Never. The ammosexuals with their gun fetishes have bought too much of our Federal Government. Only hope now falls to the reasonable and sensible states,

Like  those in California?

The line you conveniently chopped out was there for a reason and it looks like the attackers in California used a loophole to get their weapons. Hopefully California closes it before more ammosexuals and terrorists take advantage of it.

Ok, what federal laws do you propose.  Do you, like the NY Times, want to ban the specific rifles used this week?

My views are currently between reversing the Heller decision and repealing the 2nd amendment.

Yet if that is impossible I would be in favor of bans on concealed carry, automatics, semi-automatics, handguns, advanced sniper scopes; universal background checks, mandatory psychological testing, Federal registry of all guns/gun owners, banning private transfers/gifts without notifying those in charge of the registry/processing background checks and psychological testing, magazine clip limits, and police officers on patrol are not allowed guns (like in the UK, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand).

That seems like a good start.

I would also add:

- Gun buyers would have to wait 72 hours to make a gun purchase, which they would only be able to do at a store at least 120 miles from their home.
- Require gun buyers to undergo an evaluation and receive counseling from a physician about the risks associated with owning a gun
- The gun purchaser would be required to tour an emergency trauma center and meet with at least two families affected by gun violence

[dead0man]

Good luck with that.

People with concealed carry permit don't do crime, why ban it?  Legal automatics are NEVER used in crime and are virtually impossible to get now, what's the point of making them more illegal than they already are?  Semi-auto rifles are rarely used in crime, like less than 300 murders with them a year in the entire country, more Americans are murdered with human hands than with rifles.  I don't understand why "advanced" sniper scopes (whatever that means) would need to be banned, are they used in crime?  I'm down with the universal background checks, and I think you'll eventually get that.  The psyche testing sounds expensive though, and I'm sure you'll be passing that cost on to the gun owner.  I'm not sold on the federal registry, but could probably compromise on it...not sure if that's feasible.  I'm against magazine limits, but again could compromise on it.

I don't even understand the point of the add ons, other than to be a dick to gun owners.


Handguns (usually illegally acquired) are the problem.  Tackling the problem is going to be hard too, especially now that you can print one in your living room.  I know, "ban 'em", but I'm not so sure if that's the way to go, and I know it's not likely.  And like I always say, we should go after straw purchases more and punish them harder.  Continue putting and keeping violent people away (and doing it better) from the rest of us always helps too.

[7,052,770]

Good luck with that.

People with concealed carry permit don't do crime, why ban it?  Legal automatics are NEVER used in crime and are virtually impossible to get now, what's the point of making them more illegal than they already are?  Semi-auto rifles are rarely used in crime, like less than 300 murders with them a year in the entire country, more Americans are murdered with human hands than with rifles.  I don't understand why "advanced" sniper scopes (whatever that means) would need to be banned, are they used in crime?  I'm down with the universal background checks, and I think you'll eventually get that.  The psyche testing sounds expensive though, and I'm sure you'll be passing that cost on to the gun owner.  I'm not sold on the federal registry, but could probably compromise on it...not sure if that's feasible.  I'm against magazine limits, but again could compromise on it.

I don't even understand the point of the add ons, other than to be a dick to gun owners.


Handguns (usually illegally acquired) are the problem.  Tackling the problem is going to be hard too, especially now that you can print one in your living room.  I know, "ban 'em", but I'm not so sure if that's the way to go, and I know it's not likely.  And like I always say, we should go after straw purchases more and punish them harder.  Continue putting and keeping violent people away (and doing it better) from the rest of us always helps too.

[MK]

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment
 
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778




The 2nd amend is clear.  In my honest op I believe the true intent of  gun grabbers is "power" they feel as if people should depend on government, but if some still have guns then its harder to force them at the hands of the sword(government guns). After all when the feds show up in force to take or make you do something they certainly aren't going to be empty handed.
 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

MK, what, in your understanding, is the preferred realistic outcome of somebody attempting to violently resist a government decision or directive?

[MK]

MK, what, in your understanding, is the preferred realistic outcome of somebody attempting to violently resist a government decision or directive?

Is this directive/decision constitutional ?   

[MK]

MK, what, in your understanding, is the preferred realistic outcome of somebody attempting to violently resist a government decision or directive?

Is this directive/decision constitutional ?   

I'm interested in where you take this.  Assume it formally is, but the administration that passed it also stacked SCOTUS in the manner of the British House of Lords.  And whatever it has 40% approval nationally and only 25% in your state.

That would never happen.

Maybe the best outcome that you could hope for the party opposed to the 2nd amend is to gain majority in states and local legislature and make strict laws that discourage ownership  IE New York and CA , however that isn't happening either at least in our lifetime.   prob would lead to as i said in the earlier post a civil war. 

[Joe Republic]

This exchange demonstrates that the reason why the anti-gun minority is living in a fairyland where our objectives will never be fulfilled, is because the pro-gun majority is living in a fairyland where the federal government is apparently only a door knock away from rounding citizens up into camps or something.  Rational dialogue is impossible.

[MK]

Why not address the actual issue GUN VIOLANCE COMMITED BY CAREER CRIMINALS  that are released onto the streets over and over again to commit more crimes.  These people care nothing about your gun grabber laws and are actually happy that you strip law-abiding-citizen of their rights to defend themselves.   Of coruse you feel that the Police can protect the public, yet you also seek to marginalize the local and state police forces.   Whats is the objective here?

[Torie]

Oh, no doubt there will be additional national legislation over time. Whatever changes are made, will not make the issue go away. And whatever changes are made, are likely to be relatively minor. Personally, I think everyone who wants to possess a gun, should have to pass a competency test first, along with background checks, and a waiting period, to cut down on hot blooded gun related crimes. That is very unlikely to happen.

[MK]

Oh, no doubt there will be additional national legislation over time. Whatever changes are made, will not make the issue go away. And whatever changes are made, are likely to be relatively minor. Personally, I think everyone who wants to possess a gun, should have to pass a competency test first, along with background checks, and a waiting period, to cut down on hot blooded gun related crimes. That is very unlikely to happen.

Once again you arent adressing anything but more rules and regulations that effect the law abiding  from getting guns. Its the same tactic the other side uses when it comes to voter registration.  If you make something difficult and tedious obtain ,they will me less likely to want it.   The bad guy cares nothing about you restrictions or waiting periods or tests.   

You want to clean up gun violence like dog places like Chicago. ...    Tougher sentences for the perps committing crime with a deadly weapon.  The justice system is a joke in this regard.       

[Torie]

Oh, no doubt there will be additional national legislation over time. Whatever changes are made, will not make the issue go away. And whatever changes are made, are likely to be relatively minor. Personally, I think everyone who wants to possess a gun, should have to pass a competency test first, along with background checks, and a waiting period, to cut down on hot blooded gun related crimes. That is very unlikely to happen.

Once again you arent adressing anything but more rules and regulations that effect the law abiding  from getting guns. Its the same tactic the other side uses when it comes to voter registration.  If you make something difficult and tedious obtain ,they will me less likely to want it.   The bad guy cares nothing about you restrictions or waiting periods or tests.   

You want to clean up gun violence like dog places like Chicago. ...    Tougher sentences for the perps committing crime with a deadly weapon.  The justice system is a joke in this regard.       

It is a vetting process. Those who are competent and law abiding and without mental issues, can obtain a gun. It's kind of the same concept as is involved with obtaining a driver's license. Sure, it is not going to cut down much on gun violence with respect to hardened criminals. But it will cut down on accidental deaths, and hot blooded ones, and crimes by those with a history of mental issues, given the cooling off period. The sentences for gun related crimes are in most places already quite Draconian. Gun legislation in short is hardly a panacea, and likely would not cut down much on these mass killings, but at the margins, it will save innocent lives, and I think that is sufficient reason to have a more vigorous and careful vetting process.

[Tender Branson]

Not until the NRA and the GOP are annihilated.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If there is national terrorist attack under Clinton presidency, keeping guns out of terrorists hands may happen, eventually.

[publicunofficial]

"We shouldn't make this law because criminals won't obey it" is such a dumb argument. Murder's illegal and murderers keep killing people, so should we make murder legal?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

"We shouldn't make this law because criminals won't obey it" is such a dumb argument. Murder's illegal and murderers keep killing people, so should we make murder legal?

Murder is bad in itself in a way most people do not consider guns to be.  Whether or not it is greatly effective in reducing and punishing murder, the law serves a purpose in those cases where it does.
The argument you reference, stated in a more precise way, is that laws against guns disproportionately take guns away from those who are law-abiding, and do not attempt to circumvent the law or obtain weapons in illegal ways, leaves the law-abiding at a greater disadvantage in defending themselves from criminals.   

On the other hand, another pitfall for severe gun control in the US might be the reverse - that you would see an increase in the black market for weapons through the entry of previously law abiding individuals.  Whether one is law-abiding is very much up to context. It is a different category than willingness to use violence. All the same there is likely to be a correlation, as those who are habitually criminally violent have no problem breaking the law, and may have some expertise at evading it. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

The argument of basically throwing your hands up and saying it's too hard isn't really an argument either.

Yes, there'll be a black market. Yes, it may be entered by some previously law-abiding citizens. You know what that would make them? Criminals. Full stop. If we make it harder to buy guns, and we make it easier to run gun buyback programs, then eventually the number of guns in the country may start to level off and then (god willing) decrease. That would generally start driving the price in the black markets up, making it more difficult for criminals to get guns.

It's a process. Nobody's pretending this kind of thing can happen overnight. But the process has to start, and it has to start soon. It gets harder every day it doesn't.

[Maxwell]

Probably not for another couple years or so.