My compromise for gun control

I'm staunchly a pro gun advocate to the point that I believe that the average citizen should have access to the same equipment the average military personnel is entrusted with. However, I'm also willing to compromise on certain aspects. Here are my proposals if the alternative is the current gun control position is implemented into law:

My offer.

1. Universal background checks that are attached to state issued IDs like driver's licenses. Prohibited persons will have marked IDs like sex offenders do in my state. This way if someone wants to buy a firearm, all he has to do is to provide his DL and the seller can see if he's prohibited or not. This will bypass the concern about background checks to exercise a constitutional right being unconstitutional. Everyone gets a background check whether you own guns or not. It's indiscriminate.

2. Public access to the NCIS database. This way anyone can run their own background checks on potential buyers with a simple app on a phone.

3. Mandatory training that is free, or conversely, opt in training for a tax benefit. This way the second amendment isn't inadvertently only for the people who can afford training. The other scenario will incentivise otherwise unwilling gun owners to seek training for a tax write off.

4. Mandatory mental evaluations that are attached to driver's licenses or have mental evaluations be a tax benefit. Basically, every proposed prerequisite to own a firearm is applied to everyone or otherwise indiscriminate to gun owners. Everyone get treated equally. Besides, there are some people on the roads that should be mentally evaluated.

Now, no good compromise favors one side. If we're to implement the proposals listed above, here's where the gun rights advocates get in return:

In exchange.

1. National reciprocity for carrying a firearm. If I can get a license in Florida and drive all the way to Washington State and still be good, even though driving is a privilege, not a right, I should be able to do the same with my constitutional right that is written down on paper as a right

2. No "assualt weapons" bans or magazine limits nationwide. Even studies supporting gun control measures state that it's not the type of firearms available to the public that we need to worry about. It's who has access is the major concern.

3. Deregulate suppressors and short barreled firearms from the NFA. There's really no science in regulating suppressors in the first place. In fact, in Germany I believe, suppressors are not only unregulated, but required for certain types of hunting. As for short barreled firearms, there are so many work arounds to have a completely legal AR pistol for the general public that the short barreled rifle/shotgun catagory in the NFA is largely obsolete.

That's pretty much it.

 

I've read this ^ 4 times
I'm cool wit dat

 

It's indiscriminate? It's extreme government overreach. Until we're willing to face the actual issue, control of society's maniacs, no amount of weapons control will save us. A gun is just their ideal weapon, it's hardly their only choice.

But there's not a lot of talk about brick control, glass bottle control, large stick control or bathtub control. To their credit the UK has attempted "steak knife control" but it's been implemented poorly (the collection boxes have been raided by gangs). If you take a tool from a maniac, they'll just shift to a different one. They're rather dedicated once they decide to attack someone.

 

You seriously need to look up what the word "compromise" means...

 

Why does the average citizen need to own an assault weapon? What are you afraid of?

 

I don't know if this one works because your gun status would probably necessitate a more frequent renewal than your driver license does. Great idea though!

 

this is really hard because the test needs to be effective at weeding out people who actually pose a threat. I'm guessing there is likely disagreement about who can be deemed a danger, but good!

 

thou makest sense...

and I think that's it from me. Thanks Mac!

 

The condensed version....

 

the people have a right to own firearms, without weapons we are at the mercy of the government

 

we already had one revolution, when we told the queen to bite shorts

 

lol

 

'Bout time you had another one then and established a better democracy !!!

 

You didn't answer my questions..

 

The most honest answer I will give on both questions.

Why does the average citizen need to own an assault weapon? To kill something in the most effective and quickest way possible.

What are you afraid of? Any immediate bodily harm coming towards oneself or loved one.

 

And you only achieve that level of comfort by owning an assault weapon, a weapon of war?

 

in firearms training we dont say we Killed.. We say we Stopped the threat..
Saying the words "I killed" is implicating ones self that a crime was committed with possible intent.
Not only should a person be prepared with firearms, but how to respond to investigation.

I have been a victim of a crime, I stopped the threat and defended myself, I will answer questions in the presence of my attorney.

 

I gave bumpkin the un pc answer.

I do concur with legal advice and answer of Squirrel Esquire

And I still have your card brah

 

^
YES
Very comfortable ​