The gun humpers are out in force pushing back on taking action on gun restrictions.

[Samrob]

We cannot give up this time. We need to fight back harder. There should be mega legal actions against the NRA. I don't know what can be done but we must use everything we can.

[LakeVermilion]

1. I was thinking...

that AR's should only be available to people who have served in our military. They have been trained and have the experience to manage these guns. Plus, they have earned the right to own these weapons.

That would force the gun guys to pay some sort of price to own this style of weapon.

[Model35mech]

2. Charles Whitman the U of Texas tower gunman WAS a veteran

He took a variety of long guns and pistols with him that day when he killed 16 people on that campus and several more off campus as well as wounding many. His attack was the earliest of mass-shootings I can remember in my memory of television news.

I doubt it's possible to make sweeping statements that are going to be unchanging true about the safety of weapons in the hands of any class of people.

Whatever solutions may resolve this problem I think those solutions will have consider that because a person is safe one day, month or year, or group of years (such as an enlistment in the military) that person really may not remain that way all their life. Shit happens to people, it can be radicalizing. In the years after the tower shooting, we TV news watchers came to know the meaning of the term "going postal" after several workplace attacks. At autopsy Whitman hwas found to have had a brain tumor that may have been a part of why he wanted to kill.

My point here is wellness, and fitness for possession of a weapon can change. I'm not opposed to databases that can be used to prohibit gun purchases, but I don't expect those databases are going to be accurate or updated enough to catch and prohibit everyone from having a gun who one day experiences some shit in their life that leaves them radicalized and no longer suitable to possess a firearm.

[littlemissmartypants]

9. Since the NRA has essentially forbidden the keeping of records, except on paper.

Which is apparently the law. And since record keeping is done on paper which isn't kept in perpetuity. And since there doesn't seem to be any will to change this record keeping system, I'm not hopeful.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer.

I completely agree that things can change and without continuous monitoring there will be no real accountability.

❤

[LiberalArkie]

27. You know that is one thing that would be a simple act for congress to do that would not offend

anyone but the NRA, start allowing weapon applications to be digitized and searchable. It would make it quicker for gunhumpers to get their new weapons and their would be a way to deny someone due to psychological problems.

[littlemissmartypants]

30. I think that's a great idea. ❤

[Captain Zero]

46. The ones on paper should be digitized too !

They are stored in boxes in a facility in West Virginia. It would create jobs to have a project to get them digitized, searchable and able to cross reference to criminal records, mental health records, and red flag records, and newspaper articles.

[ForgedCrank]

42. This is not

the big deal that everyone makes it out to be.
Government is prohibited from keeping the records, so they basically just make the FFL's keep it instead.
It takes a total of 2 phone calls to find out who sold a gun to whom. One call to the manufacturer with a serial number to find the FFL (all digital), then the next call to the FFL who has it all on file (and digital). And FFL are also required to keep all those paper records for 20 years.
But what good does any of that do? I suppose they want to check and make sure the firearm was obtained legally, and it it wasn't, there wouldn't be any records to find anyway. Beyond that, what does it even matter? The evil has already been done at that point. I try to make sense of things when I can, but this part right here eludes my understanding.

[slightlv]

17. Being a veteran is no more or no less a qualifier.

I'm a veteran.

And U of Texas is where I lost my friend to Whitman... brain tumor or not, he took my friend away from me.

[Model35mech]

39. I agree.

[sop]

31. Perhaps any dangerous instrumentality that requires constant re-evaluation of the owner's

mental health and overall fitness, simply to prevent massacres such as this from occurring, should not be legal and widely available to everyone.

[Model35mech]

38. Maybe. I think that Congressional passage of that would be a high hurdle.

But I do think any licensing that covers conditions that are so changeable, should at least be renewed regularly.

In the not too far back here in Wisconsin you had to be re-tested for rules of the road and vision every driver's license renewal. Seems to me that renewal of a gun-ownership permit should be treated no less seriously.

IMO there are multiple hazard control points that should be in play in reducing gun risks. I don't see it as only a gun problem. Some of the potential control points are characteristics of PEOPLE, and some of them refer to characteristics of the GUNS, and some of them are characteristics of the community in which the gun will be used. None of the control points can probably be made perfect and so none alone will probably prevent every mass shooting/mass-killing. But, perhaps in combination they could work together and in series to lower the probabilities of misuse of deadly force that right now in the US are quite clearly the worst in the world.

[genxlib]

4. Funny you should mention this

I was wondering if any strict gun controls should include a carve out for current and former police officers.

It isn’t that I trust them more. It is that we need them on the right side of this argument

From my perspective, it seems like gun control should be a drop dead obvious position for the cops for a dozen reasons including their own safety and the ability to do their jobs. The only thing that would seem to counter that is preserving their own access to guns off-duty and in retirement. Maybe granting those privileges above everyone else could get them on board?

Of course, the downside would be that the policing profession would attract even more nut cases just for the special treatment

I am grasping at straws here.

[littlemissmartypants]

5. I don't think this is a good idea. Sorry. ❤

[Karma13612]

6. Why have they

“Earned the right to own one” after they are out of the military?

What purpose does it serve them? And I worry about them having these deadly weapons when many suffer with PTSD.

If they want an honorary momento from their time in the service, maybe the military could give them a special award for service while using said AR. And maybe a replica that has no way of firing. But why do they need an actual workable deadly weapon?

[LastDemocratInSC]

32. Should veterans who worked on high powered radar systems

or were on tank crews have "honorary mementos" too?

[Karma13612]

43. Maybe you misunderstood me

I wasn’t the one suggesting they earned the right to keep a killing device. Someone else did. My comment was a suggestion to placate that poster’s desire to give them a weapon.

I don’t think they should have a momento.

[LastDemocratInSC]

45. I understood the point you were making

and was providing other examples of possible "mementos" and how it quickly becomes absurd. Not sure I phrased it well, however.

[Karma13612]

47. Ohhhhh!

OK, that makes more sense now! Yea, I kinda thought you were actually disagreeing with me so I just wanted to clarify my position.

On to the actual topic (LOL!!): I agree 110%. There are many different positions in the military, and the soldiers don’t all get to take home a memento pertinent to their task!!

Have a great weekend!

[48656c6c6f20]

8. People who have served in the military

Are a representation of society. They are just as capable and demented enough to be crazed mass killers. It's a really dumb stupid uninformed idea. I served with some people I'd never want to see own a gun.

[LakeVermilion]

14. They can get one now...

I wanted to ensure that owners of these weapons get trained.

[48656c6c6f20]

21. And I want them to be

Institutionalized for mental illness. Anyone that needs that gun is mental.

[llmart]

24. No, no, no...

You have some notion that anyone who has served in the military is trustworthy. They are not. In my own family I know a few that I wouldn't trust with a BB gun.

So, NO. A big fat, NO.

[paleotn]

26. In the military, unless you're in a specific training regimen or combat....

weapons and ammunition are locked up. The US Military has far tougher firearms regs than any state, city our town in America. Secondly, most specialties may be introduced and trained in firearms during basic, but have never touched one since. Trigger pullers are a minority. See Private Upham in Saving Private Ryan. A good example actually.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

36. Very accurate,

when we went to the firing range, we had to check out our weapons/ammo from the armory and before we could leave the firing range, every bullet, shell casing and weapon had to be accounted for, if even one discrepancy is reported, then nobody left until the issue was resolved.

The only ones carrying on base were the MP's, all other weapons, including personal weapons, were required to be secured in the base armory.

The military has zero sense of humor when it comes to weapons on base.

[GoodRaisin]

41. But why do they need them after they are no longer in the military?

They aren’t going to kill people after they leave the military. These weapons are for killing people.

[Tickle]

3. Hopefully they'll

do common sense laws. Keep hunting guns but only for those who eat what they kill. Killing for fun needs to stop and I would go as far as to say keep hand guns for protection only.

That’s a compromise? Yes no

[Karma13612]

7. Yes, I like

The proposal.

[Fla_Democrat]

10. How would they know?

Aside from the fact that 'hunting guns' is more than a little vague, how would they know that someone eats what they kill? Hand guns for protection only? Again, how would one know? Add another line to the 4473 saying that this firearm is for protection only? Then, if someone were it use it in a offensive act, they could be prosecuted? If they survived their murder spree, they could be facing an extra 5 years for lying on an ATF document?

[The Wizard]

12. I carried an M-16 in combat

I was essentially hunting for people. Does that make the M-16 a hunting weapon? My hunting included directing artillery fire. Is a 105 howitzer a hunting gun? The term hunting gun is vague. Plain language guidelines have to be codified as to what constitutes a hunting gun.

[Tickle]

13. I don't know 🤷‍♀️

Christ I have issues spraying raid

[leftyladyfrommo]

11. What about the 400 milllion guns already out there?

That's the real problem.

[Liberal In Texas]

15. You start by making weapons of war illegal

then you do buy-backs. That gets rid of most of those type of weapons.

The rest of the 400 million you put restrictions on. Things like background checks and red flag laws. You require insurance.

It won't happen all it once.

[llmart]

35. Best and simplest answer yet.

Would it take time? Yes. But at this point, we need to get as many of these killing machines and macerate them to bits. Offer rewards for people to "snitch" on people who they know to have bought these things. I know I'd snitch on a couple even without the reward.

[Kaleva]

40. There are very few records as to who has such guns

It'd be like making Meth illegal and expecting people to just turn it in.

[radical noodle]

28. It's important to control ammunition too

The guns won't do anything without the ammunition. Reduce magazine size. Eliminate drums.

[Liberal In Texas]

29. Yes. And put a tax on each round.

A pretty high one, similar to what we've done for cigarettes.

[IronLionZion]

16. They're saying the answer is more guns

Always more guns. NRA works for the gun manufacturers and gets Russian money to divide Americans.

[dlk]

18. This is a moral issue disguised as freedom

Time at stop the scam.

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

25. Exactly!

[Novara]

20. No carve-outs. That's way too much compromise, with dead children as the inevitable result

We need a complete ban on assault weapons and semi-automatics, period. Do mandated buybacks, then arrest people who don't turn them in. The ONLY guns that should be available to civilians are for self-protection and hunting. And last time I looked, there weren't a whole lot of deer with their own AR-15s waiting for your ass to come get them. NO ONE needs these weapons. Talk to people in the military. They will tell you the purpose of these weapons is to kill a lot of humans fast. Who the fuck needs that in a civilized society?

But we're not really a civilized society, are we?

We should not compromise on this. We have to keep hammering this until we can eventually get it passed. Don't let up. DON'T let up until we elect more Dems in order to get it passed. The Dems have great issues to run on: the very LIVES of our children, autonomy of people (women and LGBT), safety in our streets, a social safety net. It's way past fucking time they start using these messages effectively. They need to be shocking. Say things like: "Do you want your children to be slaughtered in their classroom? Then elect [fill in the name of the corrupt R running against them], because they don't believe in protecting your children from being slaughtered in their classroom." Something like that, anyway. I'm sure the pros can come up with something pithy. They need to point out that every R running against them supports slaughter in the classroom. It's the truth. They need to use it.

[llmart]

37. I could not agree with you more.

This is exactly what needs to be done. Also, we cannot let Republicans be in charge at this moment in time because our very lives and freedoms depend on it! Get out the vote and do whatever you can to get people to vote for Democrats!

[forthemiddle]

48. "We should not compromise on this"

Then you will never enact anything.
I am more of the mind that every little bit helps. Even if it’s just a clip capacity, or maybe some strengthening of background checks, etc.
If we can find any compromise with the moderates (Manchin and Romney for example), shouldn’t we cease the moment?
Any success would piss off the hard right, and probably the hard left, but it would please a whole lot in the middle, and be a minor success for President Biden, which he needs right now.

[Novara]

49. You make a good point but I don't agree.

Because our children are being slaughtered. Compromise got us HERE. We've compromised and let the other side run roughshod over us for years. We let them set the narrative. And then we gave up trying.

Manchin won't even vote for small gun reforms. So if we can't even get the tiny stuff passed, why not energize voters by going big? At least the voters would see our representatives actually FIGHTING for something worthwhile.

[forthemiddle]

50. Unfortunately then nothing will get done.

At least not for the next 8 months when a new Congress would be sworn in, and that’s only if we keep a majority in both houses, which history shows isn’t likely.
If anything is to get done, it really must be before the midterms, otherwise we are rolling a very lopsided dice in hopes that we break every single historical outcome.

[Novara]

51. nothing WILL get done - that's my point

Let me explain. Since nothing will get done anyway, if Dems go big and ask for a ban on assault weapons - and define it to mean a comprehensive ban - it will energize Dem voters. If they talk about wimpy limits like magazines of a certain number of bullets, nobody is going to get energized. If they don't even bother because they know nothing will get done, then why should people vote for them?

NEITHER BILL WILL PASS ANYWAY - not a small reform, not a comprehensive ban. So if nothing is going to pass, then the Dems should energize voters by going big. This is political calculus.

This bullshit giving up before they even start because they know reforms won't pass has the effect of turning Democratic voters off. People say, "Why vote for people who won't even fight?" By showing they listen to the people - who are saying ban these types of weapons - they show they are responsive to the people.

I'd rather they fail trying to ban killing machines than fail trying the smallest of reforms.No republican will vote for either, so why not go big?

[paleotn]

22. Pushing back while covered in the blood of children and their teachers...once again.

That needs to be the narrative. They want to protect THEIR "rights" no matter how many children have to die in the process.

[Maine Abu El Banat]

23. Gun humpers!

Perfect! I have always believed this obsession is sexual.

[LastDemocratInSC]

33. Glock has a new handgun model.

It's the PNS X10 DR.

[Maine Abu El Banat]

34. .

[rockfordfile]

44. AR-15 supporters are supporters of those terrorist that have murdered Americans

ban AR-15 easy one. Only cowards or terrorist wouldn't support a ban.