Gun law changes being considered, discussed, etc.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

* Semi-auto age limits
* Assault weapon bans
* Universal background checks
* Limits on magazine capacity
* Modifying the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
* National license/permit for purchase
* Insurance (however nebulous)
* Waiting periods
* Quantity limits on non-dealer purchases
* Registration
* Safe storage

Anyone care to share a point of view?

[Abnredleg]

1. There is a lot of support for many of these

but registration is a red line for many. Build momentum by going for changes that have public support before moving on those that will be met with vigorous opposition.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. I agree on registration.

I also regard a few of these in varying degrees of useless, offensive or counterproductive.

[The Mouth]

5. Registration *only* with an absolute guarantee of no

future confiscations (eg California and the SKS) or restrictions on sale or transfer. That is as close as I can see anything working.

Guns should be registered, but almost no one is going to do so if there is a non-zero chance of that firearm later being banned and recalled under penalty of law or restrictions put on its sale or transfer.

I don't have a dog in this fight; I have guns, all of them either bolt-action, pump-action, revolvers or flintlocks; minimum 100 year old designs, suitable for sport or self defense. But I can see why someone who might buy something more modern would fight like hell for it later to be made illegal.

Both sides need to give: we are *never* getting rid of semi-automatic rifles shooting high powered rounds with detachable magazines *AND* there are crazy fuckers who should not have guns.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

2. All of these proposals begin with the assumption that anyone who buys or owns a gun

is a potential violent criminal, who must be controlled. Even though most people aren't violent criminals.

Instead of that, I think we should start with the people who we know are violent criminals: people who have been convicted of: murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder (and possibly a few more), and remove them permanently from society. I don't support the death penalty, but I don't see anything wrong with putting a very typical criminal - a member of a criminal street gang that has been convicted of killing or attempting to kill a rival gang member - in prison for the rest of their life.

I honestly believe that if we removed all the hard-core, life-long criminals from society, that violent crime in the US would be significantly reduced.

So why do all these proposals give a pass to violent, career criminals? The criminals obviously aren't going to buy insurance or wait 10 days before they steal a gun or otherwise be inconvenienced by these proposals.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. I have my own thoughts on some of these measures.

I am also against the death penalty. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles and a variety of the violent criminals who we now repeatedly rotate through periods of prison and public exposure to the detriment of ourselves and our neighbors need to be locked away for life. I am almost completely against prison for non-violent offenses.

The term gun "control" is an absolute lie since the only real control of behavior is self-control. IMO many people want to believe in gun-control because they want themselves and their neighbors to just FEEL safer. There are folks out there embracing attitudes that are anti-Democrat simply because some so called control measures are offensive.

In reality today criminals are sometimes using "ghost" guns. Guns can be manufactured from parts. IMO it would be actually helpful if we, both locally and nationally, worked to abate the real causes of crime and mitigate the effects of convicted repeat violent offenders rather than trying to brand all gun owners as complicit. There is nothing more unifying than a common enemy so please hate your neighbor because he owns a Glock or an AR. How's that really working?