Such as closing the gun show loophole, and expanding background checks.
There is no "gun show loophole." If a person makes his living selling firearms, then he has to have a federal firearms license, and every federal firearms licensee has to perform the background checks.
If you want to expand background checks, expand access to NICS. Say, create an easily accessible mobile compatible website for it.
If gun owners are cynical and reactive, it's because they're overly sensitive to perceived threats to their liberties - not because of those wanting more gun regulation.
Those wanting more gun regulation are a real threat to their liberties.
I stopped reading right here. There are no "anti-gunners" and "gun banners". Some have more restrictive views of gun regulation than others, but there are few, if any, who want to ban guns outright.
I think Dianne Feinstein does. And the legislative history of gun "regulators" is one of creeping incrementalism, of gradual steps toward the outright banning of firearms. The "regulators" have succeeded in banning the manufacture of one category of firearms. They've severely restricted the ownership of safety accessories. They've severely curtailed and made far more expensive and time consuming the manufacture of other firearms. Some firearms are too small to import. Some firearms are too affordable.
The sooner you stop lumping your opponents together into one group, the sooner truly constructive discussions about Second Amendment rights can begin.
Anyone in favor of "gun control" or "sensible regulation" or whatever euphemism they cloak their rhetoric in is part of the same group. I don't see why I should stop lumping people together that I see to have a common political ideology.
There's that slippery slope. As I told someone else, wanting to expand background checks is a far cry from "grabbing guns".
The legislative history of gun control is a slippery slope.
Those are issues with which I am unfamiliar, but I'm sure they can be discussed like rational adults.
Perhaps if you want to have a conversation, you should educate yourself about the issues you wish to converse about.
First, the ATF ought to actually have a director so that it can do its job.
It's not very good at its job now.
Then perhaps "pro-rights" activists should work with regulators to produce laws that work.
Why would they want to act in a way that's that contrary to their decisions?
If they'd have sat down with the regulators in New York, the regulators in New York would have learned about the gun regulations in California, and that California compliant SCARY BLACK RIFLES are also NYSAFE Act compliant.
Then have them use revolvers and pump shotguns; no skin off my teeth. I still maintain, however, that military-grade hardware should be left in the hands of trained military personnel.
What's "military grade hardware?" Your grandaddy's hunting rifle is an "armor piercing cop killer sniper rifle" and it's "military grade hardware." Pretty much any bolt action rifle is. Do you take that phrase "military grade hardware" like it sounds, and outlaw your Remington 870? What about the duck hunter's Mossberg 500? What about the moose hunter's Remington 700? Those are all "military grade hardware." What about the tens of millions of actual military weapons used by actual military forces in actual armed conflicts around the world? I have dozens of such weapons. See how vague "military grade hardware" is?
No, since "gun banners" don't actually exist. I do, however, identify with a party that is generally more open to regulation than the other major party.
Here's an actual quote from an actual gun banner elected representative:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
That's a quote from Dianne Feinstein, and it's on Wikipedia.
Maybe. I'm not so sure about that.
Given the state of public education, you're probably right.
Agreed without reservation. However, I would say that zero tolerance rules are a slightly different issue.
Because it's a stupid rule.
Why?
That's not a challenge. I'm interested to hear you make a case for it.
Ringo
1) The laws don't stop anyone who wants a suppressor from going onto Amazon and purchasing a thread adapter and an oil filter and
doing the math.
2) Suppressors are a safety device. Firearms emit lots and lots of noise which is damaging to people's hearing. The use of suppressors can alleviate that. They can also be useful in that context for hunting. They help with muzzle flash, too.
3) The use of suppressors can help gun run ranges and those who are dumb and move in near them [yes, I do hold people who move near a shooting range and then complain about noise in that much contempt] and then file noise complaints to coexist, by the alleviation of the noise that firearms make.
4) It's a Roosevelt era law, and I truly despise anything remotely connected with FDR's administration. Wickard v. Filburn, FDR's court packing schemes, The Selective Service and Training Act of 1940, Executive Order 9066, and Executive Order 6102 should serve to make any truly liberty loving individual despise the FDR administration.
