Guns - What do you think of this proposal?
This Politico article is well worth reading in full. But there are a few things I found helpful:
Explanation of how gun features work
The newly reintroduced Assault Weapons Ban is emblematic of gun control proponents’ consistent failure to understand how gun technology and the gun market actually work in the 21st century. Gun bans that are based on outlawing certain firearm features (like the vertical foregrip or the adjustable stock) or limiting guns’ capabilities (for instance, by limiting the number of rounds of ammunition they can hold) are relics of a bygone era when you bought a gun and didn’t modify it without the help of a professional gunsmith.
For modern firearms, the “gun” from the perspective of federal law is typically an empty (and increasingly 3D-printable) metal frame or polymer shell with a serial number stamped into it, while all the rest of the parts that actually make the gun work are widely available online to anyone with a credit card.
The simplicity of the proposal - even I can understand it
A federal license for all semi-automatic firearms would rest on two simple and well-defined concepts, one technical and one legal:
1) A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger, automatically reloading in between each shot until the ammo is depleted.
2) “Possession” is a legal concept from the drug war that implies that a person has a contraband item “on or about one’s person,” or has “control” over the item, perhaps by having it in a motor vehicle or in a home.
Because both of these things—“possession” and “semi-automatic weapons”—are easy to define, they're easy to regulate.
Under a licensing regime that authorizes license holders for possession of semi-autos, it doesn’t matter whose semi-auto you’re holding, where you got it, how big the magazine is, or how terrifying it looks to the New York Times editorial board. It only matters that you’ve been vetted and are licensed to possess this category of weapon.
As I said, read the article in full for yourself. It specifically addresses objections that would be bought up by both the pro and anti gun sides of the debate.
Please let me know what you think? Would it work? Is it a good idea? Does it have fatal flaws?
A licence can not be granted for something that is against the law. if a licence can be granted then whatever the licence is for, must be lawful. if it's not against the law, why would you give up your right of ownership to a corrupt, fraudulent, murderous government? Don't loose your right to bear arms or have restrictions place upon those rights or in the near future you will loose your right to free speech and freedom of association like we have here in Australia. Australia is nothing more than a police state controlled by corrupt courts and corporations. Hang onto your right to bear arms with everything you have or you will be living under a dictatorship before you know it.
Guess what guys... 'criminals' will purchase, possess and use firearms of their choice regardless of the laws in place. Laws such as this only serve to manipulate a public already conforming to the laws of the state.
It also opens the door to the potential for abuse by those in power. A great example is how in Canada if you have a 'restricted' firearm license you actually waive your right to the privacy of your own home and must sign a contract allowing police to search your property without a warrant.
Ah... freedom.
On your first point - I thought this would make it much easier for police to enforce against criminals. Is it semi-automatic? Yes. Do they have a license? If not - go straight to jail.
Abuse of power seems to have been perfected at the FBI and DOJ in recent years - so I can understand why that would be a concern. You would need to make sure there were not clauses like that in their (an any sneaky ways of achieving the same)
No, you go to jail for murder, assault, crimes, regardless of whether or not you have a gun license, permit, documents, or anything. Prohibition didn't stop drugs, beer, sex, guns, music, goods, etc, in so many countries for so many years. It creates black markets. Texas has more guns but less violence, murder, than GUN-FREE CHICAGO. We all know this.
I am against prohibitions generally as well - but I do not think the author is proposing a prohibition. It looks like it would be easier to get a gun in many states under his proposal.
"This bargain would be scary for both sides. Cities like New York and Chicago would have to allow licensed, law-abiding citizens to own AR-15s and high-capacity magazines within their borders, and residents of gun-friendly states like Texas would have to accept a more thorough level of vetting of ownership of certain guns than they currently do. The gun rights side would be justifiably concerned that a hostile Congress and president could one day attempt to use the licensing scheme to limit the gun rights of large, law-abiding sections of the population, possibly on some arbitrary pretext."
The problem is not within law-abiding citizens who follow gun laws. The people that kill are people the FBI investigate in most cases. The FBI failed to stop them. We see this happen in America so many times. We also see people with guns shooting down the shooters, the serial killers.
Cool where do I get the permit to write this post?
Or the permit to walk down the street?
Or the permit to worship God?
How much for the permit to be left alone by the police?
And do I have to pay an association to not have my spare bedroom turned into a barracks?
Good questions
What is semi-automatic? Wouldn't that include hand guns? Because semi-automatic would be between manual and automatic, right? Where do you draw the line between the two? Back in the 1700's, there were canons which was included in the second amendment.
The author defines semi-automatic as:
"A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger, automatically reloading in between each shot until the ammo is depleted."
So I do not think the Author distinguishes between hand gun and long gun.
Think about a hand gun that can fire five shots. Think about Clint Eastwood and John Wayne and cowboys and how fast they can fire a hand gun. Think about modifications you can make with guns. Think about an untrained man with a bazooka facing off with an experienced assassin with a hand gun. Think about who has the advance in that situation.
It won't work it's bad and will promote corruption that's my view
True as prohibitions creates black markets seen in history.
Why do you think it will promote corruption?
Many politicians will use this to their advantage many business men also thereby threatening the innocent leading to corruption
Before police start asking if u have the permits the deeds would have been done
Looking very beautiful and attractive. Its specifications are good. Thanks for sharing these beautiful informations.
Thanks
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Relevance: Gun Control
Our Purpose
Thanks
No. keep your fucking hands off my guns. I follow the rules, don't punish me for shit retards and criminals do. Fuck straight off.
Shall not be infringed.