Active shooter thread

[Dahobbs 17,686]

Oh, I forgot to add:

16) voting. 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

See it is cowardly talk like that which almost gets Supreme Court Justices killed. Go fuck yourself.

What the fuck are you blathering about?

The dude they arrested did not have a gun on him and he called 911 on himself.

No one “almost” got killed, you exaggerating pelican.

But happy to see the hypothetical danger to Beer Bong Brett > hundreds of dead babies.

Eat some glass and fuck off.

[Biff Tannen 45,742]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, this is a lie or at least extremely misleading. We don't have those laws in the vast majority of states (because GOP).

Well, but you see, this is the essence of social media. Your response showing how all of this is nonsense will never be seen by the vast majority of viewers (assuming we are using a social media algorithm and not a message board, though many people’s brains can’t tell the difference anyway) so thanks for playing and we will see you on The Ledge. 

[Alien Octopus 562]

38 minutes ago, ultimaton said:

Why is Bert leaving his life in the government's hands? Dude should harden his house up like a prison and arm his wife kids and invest in some bullet-proof judicial gowns. If he's not doing that, then there really is no hope for him, right?

Is this Ernie?

[Foosters 17,889]

41 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

Please tell me what we regulate more than guns.

Young Adult novels

https://www.themarysue.com/us-bookseller-gender-queer-lawsuit/

Quote

Republican lawyer and Virginia House of Delegates member Tim Anderson filed a lawsuit on behalf of his client, Virginia congressional candidate Tommy Altman, to stop kids from getting Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe and A Court of Mist and Fury by Sarah J. Maas from private booksellers like Barnes & Noble. Under the guise of protecting kids, they are calling the work “obscene” and pushing for Barnes & Noble to require parent or guardian permission to sell the work to minors.

 Retired Virginia Beach Circuit Court judge Pamela Baskervill placed a preliminary injunction against booksellers while she reviews the titles. This prohibition on selling and distributing the titles applies to everyone, regardless of age.

A judge preventing a private book seller from selling a novel until she can review it to decide if its obscene. If she rules that it is, possession of said book would be a criminal offense.

Is THis A ModeRATe ruling??

[elfenix 34,332]

54 minutes ago, Homercles said:

I see another low post, occasionally-active user decides to suddenly wade into the current hot, divisive thread to throw their weight around.  

it's like they're drawing lots as to who gets to go next and whine about how mean CR is. 

[elguapo 4,586]

50 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

We already have the things you mentioned. Some states/municipalities even ban guns all together.

Please tell me what we regulate more than guns. I don’t recall getting a background check to buy anything other than a gun? Also tell me what if any of these laws should have stopped the carnage for all the mass shootings?  Make sure and include more than Uvalde. Like say Santa Fe and Las Vegas.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Side effects of Guillotine may include Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna, World War I, and World War II. Please consult a historian before using Guillotine as a part of your daily Reign of Terror.

outfuckingstanding, but you did forget one positive: that damned elusive pimpernel

[Satchel 6,949]

As soon as House Republicans passed a bill to block transgender girls from playing on female sports teams in K-12 or college, opponents started questioning how physicians would verify a minor's biology.

They claim girls of all ages could be required to undergo full pelvic exams if an opposing team's coach, player or parent questioned their sex.

They're right.

House Bill 151, also called the "Save Women's Sports Act," says if a participant's sex is disputed, she must verify her sex with a physician in "only" the following ways.

1. An exam of her internal and external reproductive anatomy. 
2. Her normal "endogenously produced levels of testosterone."  
3. An analysis of her genetic makeup.

It's not clear whether student-athletes could pick one of these options or would have to provide all three.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/06/07/bill-transgender-athletes-could-require-genital-checks-girls/7529718001/

[DDD Dad 14,351]

6 hours ago, Captainant said:

Hey hey hey now, he may have broken the law by paying someone to lie on a 4473 and make a straw purchase for him so he could cosplay as a brownshirt as a 17 year old minor, but he's just a good white boy redass aggy so let's give him a pass yeah?

Is that what they're calling Blinn College students now?

[Fudge Nuggets 19,225]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Other 1st world countries view us largely as uncivilized, arrogant, boorish and ignorant

You left out fat.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Fudge Nuggets

[C-Man 27,263]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Other 1st world countries view us largely as uncivilized, arrogant, boorish and ignorant

They're not wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Alien Octopus said:

We already have the things you mentioned. Some states/municipalities even ban guns all together.

Please tell me what we regulate more than guns. I don’t recall getting a background check to buy anything other than a gun? Also tell me what if any of these laws should have stopped the carnage for all the mass shootings?  Make sure and include more than Uvalde. Like say Santa Fe and Las Vegas.

Can somebody please shoot @Alien Octopus into the sun? Pretty fucking please. With sugar on top.

[Sbbruin 21,893]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Other 1st world countries view us largely as uncivilized, arrogant, boorish and ignorant

[TexEx15 17,569]

1 hour ago, Alien Octopus said:

We already have the things you mentioned. Some states/municipalities even ban guns all together.

Please tell me what we regulate more than guns. I don’t recall getting a background check to buy anything other than a gun? Also tell me what if any of these laws should have stopped the carnage for all the mass shootings?  Make sure and include more than Uvalde. Like say Santa Fe and Las Vegas.

I just volunteered to coach my girls recreational basketball team. I had to do a background check, complete online training, and agree to a number of ethical and moral statements about how to coach young children in a recreational basketball league. 
 

I literally had to go through more steps to coach kids than the shooter did to murder them.

Also a ban on weapons like the AR15 and a higher age limit would have stopped Uvalde and other shootings.

[MrBig 5,440]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I don't think the crazies on the right are moved by people representing a viewpoint opposite to what hate radio tells them to think. They may be moved by irrefutable evidence.

Show the crime scene photos.

Let's stop being so intellectual about this. Let's get visceral. Nothing else has worked to sway the meatheads who so casually dismiss these child slaughters. 

Show them. You can't look at gruesome reality and prattle about Hunter Biden, gas prices, or some abstract notion of your imagined rights. 

Here. Look. Are you good with this?

The visceral photos of children being blown to shreds by AR-15 exit wounds is too much for this country to experience. People on both sides of the gun argument don’t want to see it. 

Parents of children decimated by AR-15 gunfire don’t want photos of bodies being circulated. 

A Sandy Hook family had an open casket and covered their kid’s jaw with a cloth because it was blown off. The parents made it publicly known, but we never saw photos.

Anti-abortion advocates are protesting outside of abortion clinics with posters of late term abortions, yet we don’t see an equal number of pro-gun control advocates protesting outside of gun shops with posters of mangled child bodies. Why is that? Gun control advocates have too much civility to promote this type of protest. But the restraint has gotten them nowhere. And now anti-abortion activists are about to get exactly what they want. 

We are in an age where it's time to put nobility aside and put everything on the table to get reasonable laws passed. A bunch of fucking protesters stormed the Capitol on Jan 6 but it’s still “up for debate” about what really happened. We all saw footage of that shit and a few people got some prison time, but nothing fucking happened to the people at the top! That’s why these parents don’t want their child’s shredded up bodies being displayed to the public. We’re the most powerful country in the world at making nothing happen despite everything happening around us. 

[Anastasis 23,485]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Removing intent as an element from criminal prosecutions will require going around some Constitutional hurdles. Easier said then done. Also, I'm surprised you of all people would support that sort of weakening in our criminal justice system given your prior posting history. 

If there are barriers regarding "intent" to prosecuting someone for lying on the 4473, seems like we can address that in a focused way that doesn't impact other areas of criminal prosecution and can clear constitutional requirements. Seems pretty straightforward especially for the very objective components of item 21 like felony conviction and domestic violence.  These are yes/no questions that bounce up against legal paper trails with straightforward and objective yes/no source of truth for reference. If a person with a criminal record is stupid enough to check "no" on a question that asks whether they are convicted felon or domestic abuser on a 4473, I am not particularly persuaded by arguments about their "intent". I think that smart lawyers can figure out ways to navigate the challenges, but maybe I am wrong and the hurdles are too tall. 

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm actually not that big of a believer in outright bans of items. I believe the manufacturers need to be regulated in terms of how they selling, to whom they are selling, and tracking where items they manufacture go. Rather than outright preventing someone from owning an AR or even a high capacity magazine, my preference is stringent regulation on who is allowed to purchase those things through strong licensing requirements and potentially need-based limitations (this one I'm a little unsure how it would work). 

If you implement some sort of a licensing requirement for ARs moving forward, what do you do wrt the 20MM already in circulation? I am not completely opposed to taking the approach of licensing, but man, if prosecuting a 10s of thousands of very straightforward violations related to 4473s is to too much of a challenge to solve, you're talking about something that requires orders of magnitude more regulatory and enforcement effort.  

Edited June 8, 2022 by Anastasis

[C-Man 27,263]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If you implement some sort of a licensing requirement for ARs moving forward, what do you do wrt the 20MM already in circulation? I am not completely opposed to taking the approach of licensing, but man, if prosecuting a 10s of thousands of very straightforward violations related to 4473s is to too much of a challenge to solve, you're talking about something that requires orders of magnitude more regulatory and enforcement effort.  

How about we just fucking start with bumping the age to purchase an AR-15 to 21 or even 25 and require more stringent background checks, maybe mix in a waiting period. Both of those things would've fucking delayed, it not completely stopped, the shootings from Buffalo, Uvalde and Tulsa?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,900]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

How about we just fucking start with bumping the age to purchase an AR-15 to 21 or even 25 and require more stringent background checks, maybe mix in a waiting period. Both of those things would've fucking delayed, it not completely stopped, the shootings from Buffalo, Uvalde and Tulsa?

nah bro, someone, somewhere might consider their rights infringed and that's just a risk we cannot take

[jimmyjazz 46,143]

32 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

I just volunteered to coach my girls recreational basketball team. I had to do a background check, complete online training, and agree to a number of ethical and moral statements about how to coach young children in a recreational basketball league. 

Against my better judgment, I let my younger son do Cub Scouts until after two years he realized it wasn't for him.

The "don't be a pedophile" training and proof I had to go through was substantial.  I was not allowed to be alone with a kid who was not my son.  Insofar as I recall, I was not allowed to be the only adult chaperone of a kid who was not my son, even if my son was present.

Now, I will admit that the Scouts did jack shit to enforce these policies, but technically they were in place.  That son -- who is now 18 -- could go buy an AR-15 and ammo with no roadblocks whatsoever.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

[C-Man 27,263]

That thread goes on to suggest adding the heart to the right toe and then donating proceeds to gun control initiatives. Sounds like a pretty good fucking idea to me. 

[Chad Fuck 17,782]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Against my better judgment, I let my younger son do Cub Scouts until after two years he realized it wasn't for him.

The "don't be a pedophile" training and proof I had to go through was substantial.  I was not allowed to be alone with a kid who was not my son.  Insofar as I recall, I was not allowed to be the only adult chaperone of a kid who was not my son, even if my son was present.

Now, I will admit that the Scouts did jack shit to enforce these policies, but technically they were in place.  That son -- who is now 18 -- could go buy an AR-15 and ammo with no roadblocks whatsoever.

Parent of a current Cub here.  Those rules are stringently enforced in all the units across Dallas that I know of, including ours.  No leader is ever alone with a Cub who isn't his kid.  We have recurrent training within our unit every year, and are required by Scouts BSA to have it renewed through tracked national program every two years.  Each Cub must complete "protect yourself" training at each rank level (every year- this is a national requirment) and they do it with their parents.  So everyone knows what the rules are leaders, parents, Cubs.  So despite grave errors in the past, my experience is that the current program has painted bright lines and is making every effort to stay within them.  

This is far more than I ever had to do to own the firearms I have. 

[Alien Octopus 562]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

Try going to SAMS to purchase OTC generic Claritin when your yearly allotment has been reached. I can purchase more ARs than I can allergy pills.

There is a limit on buying ARs in border states. You can read about it on Giffords site.

You can get an RV in make meth in the desert.

[jimmyjazz 46,143]

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

That thread goes on to suggest adding the heart to the right toe and then donating proceeds to gun control initiatives. Sounds like a pretty good fucking idea to me. 

I'd buy a pair.  Mine are all blown out anyway -- about a half dozen pair.

[royiv 9,362]

47 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

I just volunteered to coach my girls recreational basketball team. I had to do a background check, complete online training, and agree to a number of ethical and moral statements about how to coach young children in a recreational basketball league. 
 

I literally had to go through more steps to coach kids than the shooter did to murder them.

Also a ban on weapons like the AR15 and a higher age limit would have stopped Uvalde and other shootings.

Sounds like a lot of work. Should’ve just gotten the AR15 and started blasting.

[jimmyjazz 46,143]

1 minute ago, Alien Octopus said:

There is a limit on buying ARs in border states.

Holy shit, that's your argument?  One can only buy X many AR-15s?  I mean, one gun plus unlimited ammo = infinity.  How many lethal doses of meth could be cooked up with a legal purchase of antihistamine?

[TexPx 2,324]

How are the nation's police forces not calling for changes on these weapons? Even if police skew more conservative/right-wing, you'd think that having to be out in public on a day-to-day basis with these weapons around would overcome any sort of political bias to say "Hey, I just saw five officers killed in Dallas with an assault rifle. Get those things off the streets." or "Hey, I just had to enter a classroom with 19 dead fourth-graders and 2 teachers and I will never get that image out of my head."

[Alien Octopus 562]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Holy shit, that's your argument?  One can only buy X many AR-15s?  I mean, one gun plus unlimited ammo = infinity.  How many lethal doses of meth could be cooked up with a legal purchase of antihistamine?

Not sure never made meth. But I guess you can look at it from a net gainer affect? Sale/ruined lives/crime/meth babies etc. That said, I am for legalization of all controlled substances so not really in tune with DEA reasoning. I am a  lifelong user of Sudafed, I sign a form every time I get it behind the counter.

[Dahobbs 17,686]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If there are barriers regarding "intent" to prosecuting someone for lying on the 4473, seems like we can address that in a focused way that doesn't impact other areas of criminal prosecution and can clear constitutional requirements. Seems pretty straightforward especially for the very objective components of item 21 like felony conviction and domestic violence.  These are yes/no questions that bounce up against legal paper trails with straightforward and objective yes/no source of truth for reference. If a person with a criminal record is stupid enough to check "no" on a question that asks whether they are convicted felon or domestic abuser on a 4473, I am not particularly persuaded by arguments about their "intent". I think that smart lawyers can figure out ways to navigate the challenges, but maybe I am wrong and the hurdles are too tall. 

You could probably create a law that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny. But strict criminal liability (liability without guilty intent) is very rare in our jurisprudence and I'm reluctant to expand its use, especially if the law in question has extremely limited utility in preventing crime. Here, criminals will freely lie on such forms, so ability to prevent crime is non-existent. Further, enforcement of the provision prior to some other bad act that draws attention to the lie is unlikely and extremely difficult on a practical level. Thus, this sort of law primarily serves to add a marginal increase in punishment to someone prosecuted for another, likely much more serious, offense. 

Quote

If you implement some sort of a licensing requirement for ARs moving forward, what do you do wrt the 20MM already in circulation? I am not completely opposed to taking the approach of licensing, but man, if prosecuting a 10s of thousands of very straightforward violations related to 4473s is to too much of a challenge to solve, you're talking about something that requires orders of magnitude more regulatory and enforcement effort.  

Create a processing period where existing owners are required either to report and get licensed or turn back their guns for a rebate. Anyone found in possession of a weapon without a license after that point is subject to criminal prosecution and the denial of any future weapon license. 

1) Going forward, this system doesn't require self-enforcement by the potential bad actor, so it has the actual ability to limit the distribution of firearms from those that should not have them;

2) While there is some administrative hassle in enforcing licensing for guns already distributed, the vast majority of guns owners will comply with a reasonable processing period. Most of those that don't will at some point want to buy new guns or ammo and need to have a license to do so.  The remaining ones will either get caught, have no ammo, or die off. 

3) Again, a licensing system has the advantage of actually preventing the unlicensed from acquiring firearms going forward. It doesn't rely on self-enforcement. And it can be easily enforced because the vast majority of gun and ammo purchases are done through large scale sellers. The small time private to private sales are an issue, but one that can be managed. 

[TexPx 2,324]

Oops fuck you tapa.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,900]

 

[Dahobbs 17,686]

23 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

There is a limit on buying ARs in border states. You can read about it on Giffords site.

Again, a small number of states have a small number of laws, in this case regulating bulk purchases. Unfortunately, none of that helps my state, Texas, which, as I told you previously, has had 6 of the 15 deadliest mass shootings, 4 of them within the last 5 years. Has it ever occurred to you that, just maybe, the rest of us want ALL OF THE STATES to have reasonable gun safety reform? 

Also, by "border states" you either mean just California or you mean our border with Canada. 

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 46,143]

When someone will not acknowledge that there are equal or higher barriers to buying antihistamines than AR-15s (hey that rhymed), I know where they are coming from, and it isn't a good place.  Fuck you, Octopus.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

This all sounds fishy as fuck.

[Bullneck 19,210]

4 hours ago, Alien Octopus said:

I respect the rule of law. A deal can always be made if both parties want to come together. I consider myself a moderate and do hope we all can agree to something, even when we disagree. All the nasty silly shit on this board is just board talk. Truly came here to see what was bouncing around. Will go back to sports board soon, just a tourist. 

I'm sure you've seen the list of crazy laws we've had in this country, right?

[Foosters 17,889]

43 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

This all sounds fishy as fuck.
 

I dunno about fishy. Sounds like a garden variety lunatic. You'd have to ask the GOP and Brett why they think he should be able to have a gun.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Foosters

[Anastasis 23,485]

34 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You could probably create a law that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny. But strict criminal liability (liability without guilty intent) is very rare in our jurisprudence and I'm reluctant to expand its use, especially if the law in question has extremely limited utility in preventing crime. Here, criminals will freely lie on such forms, so ability to prevent crime is non-existent. Further, enforcement of the provision prior to some other bad act that draws attention to the lie is unlikely and extremely difficult on a practical level. Thus, this sort of law primarily serves to add a marginal increase in punishment to someone prosecuted for another, likely much more serious, offense. 

 

I don't think that the bolded is accurate nor relevant in this discussion. The NICS denial draws attention immediately, and with some simple filtering based on what was submitted on the application vs the source of truth, you can identify the denials that should be low hanging fruit for investigation and prosecution. This fact that this stuff is mostly all done electronically now makes identification of these cases for further review the easiest part.  The other aspects related to resource constraints and challenges to establish intent to deceive that come downstream are the real challenges. 

 

  

45 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Create a processing period where existing owners are required either to report and get licensed or turn back their guns for a rebate. Anyone found in possession of a weapon without a license after that point is subject to criminal prosecution and the denial of any future weapon license. 

1) Going forward, this system doesn't require self-enforcement by the potential bad actor, so it has the actual ability to limit the distribution of firearms from those that should not have them;

2) While there is some administrative hassle in enforcing licensing for guns already distributed, the vast majority of guns owners will comply with a reasonable processing period. Most of those that don't will at some point want to buy new guns or ammo and need to have a license to do so.  The remaining ones will either get caught, have no ammo, or die off. 

3) Again, a licensing system has the advantage of actually preventing the unlicensed from acquiring firearms going forward. It doesn't rely on self-enforcement. And it can be easily enforced because the vast majority of gun and ammo purchases are done through large scale sellers. The small time private to private sales are an issue, but one that can be managed. 

I am not sure I follow the use of "self-enforcement" in this post.  The current system is not based on the honor system.  It is based on NICS background checks at time of transfer. I think that that system should be open and required for all transfers (inc. private), but I am quite sure I understand the "self-enforcement" distinction you are making. In item 2 I think that you minimize the challenges (legal, political, constitutional, administrative) involved. That is not to say that the juice is not worth the squeeze, but if you are going to push back on enforcing 4473 laws that are already on the books today as untenable because of perceived constitutional, legal, or administrative hurdles, your proposal would have the clear hurdles that are all very much taller.   

 

[Anastasis 23,485]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

When someone will not acknowledge that there are equal or higher barriers to buying decongestants antihistamines than AR-15s (hey that rhymed), I know where they are coming from, and it isn't a good place.  Fuck you, Octopus.

At least you didn't call them "clips". 

[jimmyjazz 46,143]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

At least you didn't call them "clips". 

Antihistamines, magazines, whatever.

[Satchel 6,949]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

nah bro, someone, somewhere might consider their rights infringed and that's just a risk we cannot take

The retort to this talking point should always be to question why it’s acceptable to infringe upon the right to pursue life liberty and happiness.

[jimmyjazz 46,143]

10 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The retort to this talking point should always be to question why it’s acceptable to infringe upon the right to pursue life liberty and happiness.

Easy answer:  the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence.  Game, set, match, biotches.

[Satchel 6,949]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Easy answer:  the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence.  Game, set, match, biotches.

Then you say those three rights set the predicate for seeking independence.

[jimmyjazz 46,143]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Then you say those three rights set the predicate for seeking independence.

Oh, I get it, I'm just trying to anticipate the "originalist" angle vis a vis the Constitution.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,225]

32 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Then you say those three rights set the predicate for seeking independence.

Life ones before pursuit of happiness so it’s more important. Our kids’ lives are higher ranked than boom, octopus and fattie’s pew pew pew fetish.

[SmokeyTheBear 5,562]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

I dunno about fishy. Sounds like a garden variety lunatic. You'd have to ask the GOP and Brett why they think he should be able to have a gun.

The problem is that now he'll go straight to jail instead of a medical facility to be rehabilitated. People don't have incentives to address their mental issues in this country before it escalates to this type of situation. Regardless, good on him for asking for that help by turning himself in. 

Or he's a crisis actor.... 

[MrBig 5,440]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

3) Again, a licensing system has the advantage of actually preventing the unlicensed from acquiring firearms going forward. It doesn't rely on self-enforcement. And it can be easily enforced because the vast majority of gun and ammo purchases are done through large scale sellers. The small time private to private sales are an issue, but one that can be managed. 

We need a system similar to the DMV where buyers of guns and ammunition need a license similar to driving a certain type of vehicle. 
 
Class A/B/C and CDL type of licenses would be necessary to own and purchase certain guns and bullets.

The least gun control advocates can do is raise the age to buy semi autos to 21. I would be for allowing a “learner’s permit” to 18-21 year olds as a bargaining chip to help get a bill like this passed.

I would, however, be worried that major companies testing for specific classes of gun licenses would turn into a Pearson College Board type of monopoly with their stranglehold on standardized testing.

[Dahobbs 17,686]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

 

I don't think that the bolded is accurate nor relevant in this discussion. The NICS denial draws attention immediately, and with some simple filtering based on what was submitted on the application vs the source of truth, you can identify the denials that should be low hanging fruit for investigation and prosecution. This fact that this stuff is mostly all done electronically now makes identification of these cases for further review the easiest part.  The other aspects related to resource constraints and challenges to establish intent to deceive that come downstream are the real challenges. 

 

  

I am not sure I follow the use of "self-enforcement" in this post.  The current system is not based on the honor system.  It is based on NICS background checks at time of transfer. I think that that system should be open and required for all transfers (inc. private), but I am quite sure I understand the "self-enforcement" distinction you are making. In item 2 I think that you minimize the challenges (legal, political, constitutional, administrative) involved. That is not to say that the juice is not worth the squeeze, but if you are going to push back on enforcing 4473 laws that are already on the books today as untenable because of perceived constitutional, legal, or administrative hurdles, your proposal would have the clear hurdles that are all very much taller.   

 

I'm not pushing back on enforcing the laws on the forms. I'm saying they aren't practical or effective in accomplishing any reduction in gun distribution. By all means, try and enforce them. But we need something more robust and more proactive to make a real difference. That's what I propose. I think that is easy to enforce going forward. I think guns currently owned can be captured, but frankly I don't care if their current owners are exempted. New owners of the same firearms should be licensed though.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,797]

4 hours ago, C-Man said:

That thread goes on to suggest adding the heart to the right toe and then donating proceeds to gun control initiatives. Sounds like a pretty good fucking idea to me. 

God dammit 

[B00M 6,465]

9 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Pew pew pew you small-dicked fucker.

 

[Anastasis 23,485]

5 hours ago, C-Man said:

How about we just fucking start with bumping the age to purchase an AR-15 to 21 or even 25 and require more stringent background checks, maybe mix in a waiting period. Both of those things would've fucking delayed, it not completely stopped, the shootings from Buffalo, Uvalde and Tulsa?

Agree.  I've suggested 25 a couple times on this thread as the cut off. No problem with that. Also would be open to waiting period. As mentioned previously, I would push back a bit on revolvers and shotguns though, and try to limit significant waiting periods to semi auto rifles and autoloading pistols.