So, you want to take away rights from all people, even those who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own firearms, because a very small minority of people abused those same rights? Why should I be punished because someone else broke the law? How is that not a violation of my sixth ammendment right to due process?
If I were interested in being snarky, this is where I would tell you to think like an adult, not a tyrant.
Some of us live in rural areas and use guns almost daily to defend crops and livestock from pests and predators. How should those people "adjust"?
You must be confusing a CCW (Concealed Carry of a Weapon) permit with an FFL (Federal Firearms License).
A CCW is obtainable by almost anyone who is over 21 and not a convicted felon, and allows you carry a concealed weapon, such as a handgun or a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches.
An FFL is obtainable by business-owners who pass extensive background checks with the ATF and allows them to legally sell firearms to other people.
A CCW can be obtained over a weekend or two. An FFL takes months of paperwork, interviews, background checks, and filing fees.
If you don't believe me, please go try and obtain an FFL. I'd be very interested to learn how far you get.
I'm not certain if you're referring to the border with Mexico or the rest of the US, but if a weapon is banned in California, it's also banned to import one into California from another US state.
Setting up checkpoints and checking every car coming in for weapons would be a violation of every citizens' right to travel, and fourth ammendment right against unreasonable searches.
So, how do you propose to implement "better birder control" without violating the rights of citizens who have committed crime?
Your suggestion, if implemented, would result in only the wealthy having a right to self preservation. Are you certain it would be a good idea to consolidate even more power into their hands and further entrench their monopoly on violence?
It's an intentional choice, but it's not for style. The EPA passed regulations in the 90s that demanded a certain level of efficiency from all manufacturers. Sounds great in theory, but the execution was very flawed. The problem is, the regulations allow for less efficiency, based on the size and weight of the vehicle. Well, it's much easier to engineer a big, heavy vehicle than it is to engineer a more efficient vehicle, so which option do you think most American car companies chose? That amount of bulk allows them to have a lower rated MPG while still remaining "compliant."
The premier of the next Herbie sequel, in which Herbie falls in love with a yellow Beetle of the same body style as the pictured limo.
Ok then, it sounds like you think the only way to improve society is to replace its members with ones who are "more sensible," as defined by you. Sorry, but I'm not sure how to help you with that one either.
I'm glad we agree the root causes of violence need to be addressed.
I don't think bans can ever be fully effective unless we, as a society, are willing to violate every gun owner's second, fourth, fifth, and sixth ammendment rights; I believe that may be some of the problems you're referring to.
Personally, in addition the other changes you mentioned, I'd like to see a very small tax on gun sales to fund firearm safety and education programs in public schools. If the US wants to embrace firearms as a part of our culture the same way we do cars, I think it's reasonable to require firearm education the same way we require driver's education.
In the US, absolutely. It's probably one of the most common, followed by "taking the Browns to the Super Bowl."
California has the strictest gun laws in the US. They passed legislation a few weeks ago that bans owning any Glock handguns in the state (unless you're a cop, of course) that goes into effect Jan 1, 2026. AR-15s and all other so called "assault weapons" have been banned for years. Plus, it's still illegal to shoot people. What else do you think needs to happen?
Correct. To my knowledge, there is no legal way to possess a suppressor or high capacity magazine in California, under their current laws. In (almost) all other states, high capacity magazines are not regulated, and suppressors can be legally obtained with a $200 tax stamp and NFA form.
I'm not from California, so I'm not as familiar with their laws, but I find the idea of an easy loophole to suppressor ownership very difficult to believe.