rEaChInG aCrOsS tHe AiSlE
Gun control would make so much more sense if we treated guns like vehicles.
Want to drive a car?
New driver?
Pass a test, and get a provisianal license to operate safely with experienced users in your company.
Test to prove proficiency, ensure you don’t have any restrictive health issues that could impact your safe operation of the unit, validate your insurance coverage and you get a standard operators permit.
Need to use the big equipment?
Take some additional safety courses, beef up your insurance and prove you can handle it - with regular check ins and enhanced supervision and you get a commercial license.
Want to do something different, like the gun equivalent of a motorcycle? Another test and license endorsement to use.
Main theory - you can have anything you want but agree to prove and maintain proficiency and be mentally and physically able to operate it. Regular check ins to ensure your abilities do not wain and annual registration.
This is not crazy. If it works for cars, semi trucks, motorcycles etc - it should work for deadly weapons.
And remember, we have handicapped drivers, we have people on probationary permits etc, breathalyzer start switches, etc ……there are lots of places for reasonable accommodations to the infringed and those with limited or restricted capacity.
But to just turn the keys of a semi truck with a double trailer over to 16 year old with near sighted vision?
They’d say you are crazy.
But anyone of legal age can walk in, grab an AR-15 and disappear into the woodwork for the rest of their lives with capacity for mass assault and no one does anything about it.
I understand why you say this, but Americans have a right to bear arms, not vehicles. The only reason for all the controls on vehicles is because they are a privilege, not a right.
Well the Republicans are public stating they plan on erasing everyone who isn’t white so yeah stay strapped
I completely disagree with banning rifles and pistols. However, I am all for intensive background checks, psychological tests, firearm classes and tests, mandatory storage safety with inspections and licensing classifications depending on what you want to buy. The Europeans do this correctly and the US allows lunatics to own firearms.
mandatory storage safety with inspections
Here in the U.S. our Constitution prohibits the government from performing searches of people’s homes with first having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and a warrant to search their home that has been signed by a judge. Const. Amend. IV.
As part of getting an FFL, you effectively waive that right; the ATFE can drop by the address on the license, unscheduled, for inspection, and if you don’t let them in, your FFL we be immediately rescinded, and nearly any judge will approve a search warrant for that location over the phone in minutes.
We could do the same for individual owners, just like dealers, and there would be supporting precedent. (But, it would certainly be subject to judicial (including SCOTUS) review.)
Those will be used against letting leftist get guns.
“If you’ve smoked weed in the last 5 years or have Trump Derangement Syndrome, I’m afraid I can’t sell this to you.”
Hawaii state Senator Joy Buenaventura, who is typically a supporter of gun control measures, said the bill would criminalize existing owners of assault rifles, per Hawaii News Now.
She said: “Now, by their mere possession, because we decide to pass this bill, we decide to label them as criminals and that to me, it’s unethical and should not be tolerated by this body.”
However, Senate Judiciary chair Karl Rhoads disagreed with this take on the bill saying it allowed for “grandfathering.”
Sooo… which is it?
But yeah. Obviously America should do this.
Grandfathering requires firearm registration. They did the same thing with the fully automatic firearms ban in the 80’s. Now the kids and grandkids of people who previously legally owned firearms have to make a decision. Some of these firearms would be worth 6 figures or more if they were registered, and some have significant historical value, but instead it’s a serious felony to own them and they had no say in how it ended up in this state.
Illinois also very recently did a semi auto registration, and a lot of folks did not comply, because they believed that is just the first step to confiscation. Now these people’s family are going to have the same problem in a few years.
Just because there is a grandfather clause, doesn’t mean it’s going to automatically make everyone law abiding. And one person’s decision is going to impact their family for generations.
They did the same thing with the fully automatic firearms ban in the 80’s.
There was no ban in the 80s. For full auto firearms to be legally owned, they had to have been registered since the establishment of the 1934 NFA.
What happened in the 80s was the closing of the registry to prevent new full auto guns from being added, but existing guns to have been legally owned would have already been registered.
YUP. Seems like an important contradiction where a good journalist could then go to the bill text and determine which one of them is lying.
Says it “allows” for grandfathering, so I bet they pick & choose who’s a criminal and who gets a pass.
Smart move.
Well yeah, they might need those guns to topple fascists…
Do you think Americans have it in them to actually do that?. I think when tyranny comes knocking at their door, many Americans will comply and many will even want to join them, maybe some isolated pockets go full Waco, TX on them but the goverment has spent trillions of American tax money on building weapons of war that they’ve used on foreign civilian populations for decades, all they have to do is point it inwards and then it doesn’t matter how many Glocks you’ve got does it.
In that case, let’s ban them
- Republicans most likely
They’ll need it for the civil war
Or…this is just another cynical ploy to appeal to the right, since they seem incapable of moving left on any subject.
It’s because it’s not the issue, nor should time be wasted on that right now. We can argue policy later. We need to unite and get the traitor out of office
That’s literally the only garbage the Democrats have been running on for almost a decade now. “Don’t think about policy…just focus on getting the bad guy out of office.” If that’s such a great strategy, then why do things keep getting worse?
Maybe if we actually deal with the underlying policy problems, we wouldn’t have the issue of fascism taking over, in the first place.
Sorry. You’re wrong.
Focusing on this stupidity is what hurt the Dems. They keep going to the same wall Wich dried up a long time ago. Focus on the issue at hand
Lol! How did Democrats focus on policy?
It’s because the politicians want the people to protect them, after they have consistently failed to protect the people.
I don’t think so. It happened in the Hawaii state legislature. They don’t run on the same incentives over there.
Hawaii’s Democratic Party spans from the left to the right. The only people who get elected as Republicans are the truly insane.
But generally, Hawaii supports strict gun laws, so this seems like a surprising result.
Oh no…. Reverse psychology wouldn’t work on them … but reverse reverse psychology might work on the swing voters
At this point I think we should upgrade it to Ratchet Law.
I don’t think the Civil War is gonna be Maui lobbing 5.56mm at Oahu…
The Republicans are actually secret geniuses, they are doing all this authoritarian stuff to trick the left into embracing guns.
Nah.
This.
This is one thing I hate about democrats. They barely swing a few undecided voters and throw it all away by bringing up an item that many undecided voters take as a single-issue subject.
Gun issues are a losing topic.
Focus efforts on anything else (healthcare, housing, etc) and gun violence will drop.
Ronnie Reagan and George Bush Sr are notorious gun control freaks and they are GOP. Yes, improving labor rules and public services would relieve the stress on the Americans reducing violence. No wonder the USA experiences so many “going postal” murders.
I hate seeing articles like this because it tees you, the commenter, up for assuming that the entire DNC decided to drop their gun control policy.
This is just for Hawaii. Hawaii voted against this.
Newsweek is such a dogshit source to be talking about in forums and threads because they write everything assuming that Democrats are a perfectly unified group, all with identical motivations, reasoning, and agendas. We know they’re not, but NW can show you a ding in a shoulder plate, and tell you the entire suit of armor is equally vulnerable.
They do it almost every election cycle though.
You say that as if this vote result was a bad thing.
Not at all. I don’t know anything about Hawaii’s internal politics, so the only thing I focused on was Newsweek’s misleading headline and article writing.
Funny how providing people with the things they need stops violence.
History and human nature says otherwise. There will always be violence of some kind. Someone always wants more.
Preventing all violence was never the goal, because everyone understands there will always be some violence. But making sure people aren’t struggling to survive can greatly reduce the amount of violence happening.
Sure. But the violence decreeces when resources for each are plentiful. Its just how need and desperation work in the animal kingdom. Less competition equals less violence
Absolutely. I was responding to your comment that uses the language that it “stops violence”. Decreases is different, and we’re on the internet so there is probably some moron who thinks it will actually stop all violence and utopia will sprout. 😆
So good to see more people understanding this. Spend the political capital on shit that will actually reduce our violence, vs virtue signaling to a ever shrinking group of anti-2a voters.
Where the fuck are all your dedicated gun nut independents? Because this issue that you don’t like and because of that assume that massive numbers of true independents don’t like seems to have added up to jack shit as far as exercising those cherished rights to actually do ANYTHING in response to unmistakeable tyranny.
And I’m not even talking about starting a hot rebellion. The MAGA shitstains armed up and showed the colors over school boards and vaccines, but actual assaults on democratic constitutional order and this supposedly critically large non-MAGA gun population can’t even be arsed to do anything. You’ve got a hobby and a fantasy that when things get Really Serious, you’ll be the hero, but that time is always somehow not actually happening, because it’s only supposed to be a fantasy.
Where the fuck are all your dedicated gun nut independents?
Everywhere, in plain sight, not talking about it on heavily surveiled social media.
Not doing anything. I don’t want a status report, I just don’t believe that this huge group of tyranny-resistors is actually there and none of them are organizing shows of force to put the government on notice, but that you’re all just waiting for something more serious to actually decide it’s time for the well regulated militia to hit the streets. Maybe you’ll be out there when the shooting war actually starts, but I’m not even confident in that.
What are you doing? Why do you think owning a gun obligates anyone to put themselves in the Trump regime’s crosshairs?
I don’t speak for all non-republican gun owners, but I don’t have any fantasy about being a hero with a gun, either for self defense or for defense against a tyrannical government.
The point is that the issue of gun control doesn’t gain any votes for democrats. The best thing that any of them have said is when Harris said “yeah I carry.” Had she continued with saying she thinks there’s enough gun laws as-is, and talked about enforcement, and other methods to reduce violence there might have been a few votes turned her way.
This is the same argument as bringing on the Cheneys or throwing minorities under the bus. Just because someone is a Democratic voter doesn’t mean they’re in the bag and all policy should be crafted for what you think are the “gettable” votes in the middle. And I know anti-gun independents. Don’t confuse your personal preferences with being a silent majority. Gun control polls with majority support.
Totally agree. Gun issues need to be off the table entirely until sanity has returned to government. Dems need to focus on making normal government operations and improving living standards as exciting as the threat of taking over Canada.
While the proposed bill in the article was a poorly-defined measure, I object to the idea that gun control will always be losing. It’s one of The Onion’s reliable jokes; “No way to present this, says only nation where this kind of thing happens regularly”. And that’s not because healthcare and housing are perfectly solved issues everywhere else.
I’ve spoken with several gun owners in my state who are in perfect agreement that many do not respect the weight those objects have, and follow no safety rules - and would like to see sane regulations on model production and better background check systems, based specifically around how the most gun crimes are committed. We’re just in a ridiculous spiral where the right keeps complaining Democrats want to take away all guns, and lawmakers keep aiming for these vague “assault bans” that would accomplish nothing.
So the media again is helping stir the pot. When you use vague language like “assault-style” weapons, it makes it open to wide interpretation as to what an “assault-style” weapon is. You. the reader, are assuming and envisioning the AR-15, the AK-47 but it can also include semi-automatic hand guns or some types of shotguns. If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc. They should also quit banning by cosmetics to define “assault-style” weapons. You can easily change your fully-automatic rifle to look like a Nerf gun (fully automatics are illegal anyway). Here’s a bit more on the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
People should actually read the laws on the books and quit relying on the media or their politicians to do the reading for them. They may find there’s already several bans on “assault-style” weapons because specific language is used. People should also focus on the loopholes instead and campaign to get those closed. Politicians won’t do it so long as the NRA keeps shoving cash into their pockets.
What in hell is an “assault pistol” please ?
I think we all stopped charging the enemy waving a pistol during WW1 didnt we ? This feels like something from a Blackadder episode.
It’s referenced in the newsweek article. I read the wiki which says Hawaii have defined it, but the wiki links dont actually go to a definition.
The vast majority of pistols sold are semi auto, and they all have a pistol grip which, as I understand it are 2 of the main characteristics used to define assault weapon in the US
Confused foreigner.
The confusion is why the assault weapons ban in the 90’s failed. They did not specify semi-automatic handgun, revolver, or pistol grip short barrel shotgun. You are correct. “Assault pistol” is extremely vague. In my opinion, politicians do this to appease the NRA and the gun nuts while completely disregarding what responsible gun owners are asking for. Most responsible gun owners want the loopholes closed. The politicians can just shrug and say “Well we tried!” Or use it as an excuse to kick incumbents out that didn’t kiss the ring.
Most of this theater is at the federal level. The state level is what will make the difference which is why I encourage people to check the firearms sections of their laws.
Each state has their own definition of what an assault rifle is, and that’s what decidedes what’s banned. (Bans are by state, and most have no ban.)
For some its a pistol grip, a detachable mag, and one of like 3 other features. Two or more of those and its an assault rifle.
Pistols are regulated seperately.
None of what you said is true. Assault rifles were effectively banned for civilians by the national firearms act in 1934, and reinforced by the firearm owners protection act in 1986.
You seem to be confusing “assault rifle”, which has a legal definition and are illegal nationally, with “assault weapon” which is a poorly defined term (it’s basically a “scary looking gun” ban) and no longer illegal federally since the 1994 AWB expired in 2004.
What’s funny/sad/confusing about that is AR pistols. It basically comes down to the stock.
That is to say- manufacturers will have a product ready to skirt any ban in the hours after a bill is signed.
If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc
That’s how you get weird-ass weapons designed specifically to work around the law though. E.g in Russia they regulate harder any weapon that has rifling on more than half of the barrel (otherwise it’s considered a hunting shotgun iirc), so of course there are tons of Russian civilian weapons that are basically military stuff with shitty rifling and locked to semi auto
It does turn into a game of “one-up” but this is why you get actual weapons experts to advise on the language of the law and not business owners and lawyers who have no idea what a gun is other than it makes them a lot of money or its scary.
You will get zero people that have real knowledge and understanding of weapon systems advising legislators on ways to ban them.
Lots of cops and ex-military in favor of gun control. Not all people who know guns love them being easily and widely available.
Lots of cops and ex-military in favor of gun control.
Cops and ex-mil are not usually people I’d say know guns. When I say “know guns”, I don’t mean just that they know how to shoot–which most cops and mil people can’t do for shit----I mean know how they work, and why they’re designed the way that they are. I mean, how many cops or military people can tell you exactly what the difference is between, say, a direct impingement and a piston system? Or what the different kind of delayed blowback mechanisms are? Or what the technical differences are between and AR-15 that’s capable of being select fire, and one that isn’t?
And, even more than that, when you look at history, it’s clear that the second amendment was intended to ensure that the people had access to militarily-suitable arms. We’re right at the point of gov’t tyranny right NOW, and Dems want to disarm people? So, what?, we can have a King Trump I?
When I say “know guns”, I don’t mean just that they know how to shoot–which most cops and mil people can’t do for shit----I mean know how they work, and why they’re designed the way that they are.
None of this is rocket science. Your side hobby isn’t a PhD program that no lowly normie could comprehend without years of jerking off to gun specs.
We’re right at the point of gov’t tyranny right NOW
And I notice a conspicuous lack of “patriots” reacting at all. We’ve had years excusing dead kids in the name of deterrence against a tyrannical government and now people are getting kidnapped by masked men without identification or documentation and the people getting in the way and showing up at detention centers are unarmed women.
Your side hobby isn’t a PhD program
And yet, none of the people writing laws can understand these things. Nor do cops, most people in the military, or–in all likelihood–you. But by golly, they’re going to write laws about them, even if they have no idea what the laws they’re writing will actually do!
And I notice a conspicuous lack of “patriots” reacting at all.
Yeah, it’s almost like what passes for a “political left” in the USA is a completely watered down, neutered version of the left, and is more interested in circular firing squads than actually doing something, huh?
Well I guess we’ll just keep running in circles about this issue then won’t we.
What a pointless bill. Assault rifles have been illegal nationwide for decades.
The bill provides the exact definition they use for assault rifle which appears to be more strict than federal law. So, no, it is not pointless.
deleted by creator
You know the A in AR stands for a company called Armalite right?
True, but when the United States Armory and Arsenal at Springfield, MA was in operation and evaluating rifles, they used the term Assault Rifle in their photos.
Were they burst and full auto variants?
The last photo I saw was HK G-3 produced in Spain by CEMTE and it was full auto. I believe the 3 round burst was developed during the 1980’s for the M-16A2 and I am not sure when the Warsaw Pact developed for their AK-74 rifles.
No you didn’t.
Say hi to the ATF for me lol
Yeah, oof. They’re probably just confused by “assault rifle/assault weapon” and bought an AR-15 or something (in which case, imo this new gun owner is obligated to spend some time learning more about guns). But even if that’s true, saying “I just bought an assault rifle last week” is going to get some attention from whichever agencies in DC are monitoring Lemmy lol
AR-15 rifles also covers select fire variants. The original AR-15 made by Eugene Stoner was select fire only. The assault rifle/assault weapon distinction is functionally meaningless, and really only applies to the military. Oh, you’ll get fudds that will claim otherwise, but they’re also the ones claiming that a 1911 is the best gun ever because “TwO WorLD wARs!”.
No, the 1911 is the best because it fits in the hand. #singlestackgang. Also because it’s “cool” and pretty darn reliable.
I would not ever call a 1911 “reliable”. You need to keep up with the spring replacement (500-2000 rounds for the recoil spring), and you need to make sure that you’re keeping them very clean. I’ve had the slide stop walk out on mine in the middle of a stage, which created a stoppage that couldn’t be fixed on the clock.
It would not be my first recommendation for a carry gun.
For reliable, I’d go with a major-name striker-fired polymer framed pistol. And by “reliable” I mean a gun that you can forget to clean for 2000+ rounds, and it still works well.
That said, my carry gun is a CZ Shadow 2 Compact. It’s also not ‘reliable’; it’s going to take a lot more work than a Glock 19. I’m okay with that. And I knew that going in.
The original AR-15 made by Eugene Stoner was select fire only
Sure, but that’s not the one people are buying today. I’d bet this is another case of someone mistakenly believing that the AR stands for assault rifle.
The assault rifle/assault weapon distinction is functionally meaningless, and really only applies to the military.
I disagree. Assault rifle has one standard legal definition at the federal level. It’s functional in that it makes select fire guns effectively illegal for your average citizen. Assault weapon can apply to nearly anything because has been defined by a multitude of varying laws in different states and municipalities mostly targeting aesthetic features.
Oh, you’ll get fudds that will claim otherwise
…like the ATF
What do you mean? Assault rifles are perfectly legal
Assault rifles are full auto or burst fire. They’re not legal for civilians without a specific form of FFL, which is difficult and expensive to get. Even with an FFL you will probably run into problems with state and local laws. That’s why you’ll pretty much only see assault rifles at places like the ones outside Vegas where they let you pay to fire one for a few minutes.
Fully automatic weapons can be legally owned after a mere $200 application to the ATF.
The real hurdle is the closed nature of the full auto registry creates artificial scarcity and pushes the price of the gun itself up.
But, assuming you have the money, it is a straightforward process no more complicated or time consuming than legally owning an SBR.
Edit: Not sure why I’m being downvoted. Here is the transfer form. Block 4B is where you list what type of NFA item you are buying.
I think they call em “assault weapons” and they’re basically anything high capacity and semi auto and black and scary. Basically no recent discourse about assault whatever has actually referred to burst or auto weapons.
I think you’re probably right that those are what the law is targeting, and Newsweek is simply lying in this article.
I went and read the text. The TLDR is the law was targeted to semiautomatic weapons, but the text itself defined those as “assault rifles”.
The text proposed banning “assault rifles” and within the bill it laid out a definition for the purposes of the bill:
“Assault rifle” means a semiautomatic rifle
(1) With an overall length less than thirty inches;
(2) That has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or
(3) That accepts a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:
(A) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, the size, or any dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of the weapon;
(B) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
© Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non‑trigger hand;
(D) A flash suppressor;
(E) A shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(F) A bayonet mount;
(G) A grenade launcher; or
(H) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer.
More likely they have no idea what the difference is
A gun control measure in Hawaii failed by a narrow vote this week, after several state Democrats crossed the aisle to vote against it.
The defeat of Senate Bill 401, which sought to ban assault-style rifles in the state, shows an unexpected division in a party typically unified on gun control.
This makes me kinda concerned tbh but nonetheless its a welcome surprise. The only bigger warning sign would be pritzker lifting the assault weapon ban in my state. That to me would signal they know something is gonna happen.
deleted by creator
What surprise?
Aren’t Democrats like the backup voting option for Republicans, always?
