A proposal for a common-sense gun legislation compromise (maybe the longest post I've ever written here)

HillsboroMom

Active member
"Gun control vs. gun rights" seems to be one of the more polarizing issues in the US. It seems most people are either adamantly anti-gun or die-hard pro-gun, and at times I wonder if there is any hope for common ground or compromise.

I have come up with a 3-point plan that I think provides compromise between the two extreme sides, and offer it for your debate, discussion, and further exploration.

And I'm limited to 10k characters per message, so this will be split into multiple messages.

Point 1: Education
Here's a point (maybe the only point) where I think most people on both sides would agree. I propose mandatory gun safety education, in the same manner, and for the same reasons, that we currently offer sex ed. I know there are people on the right who bristle at the idea of making anything mandatory, but I would hope they would get behind a program aimed at teaching kids the proper use of firearms, how to make sure the safety is on, how to check to see if a chamber is loaded, identifying the difference between toy guns and real guns, etc. I also know a lot of people on the left might say "My kid doesn't need to know that stuff. They just need to know to stay away from guns, and that's enough." And I would say to them the same thing leftists say to right-wingers when they say the same thing about sex ed. Is it really worth risking your kid's life? If this program saved one life from teaching a kid proper gun handling, will it be worth it?

Point 2: Stop the Gag Order
This one might get some people on the right a bit defensive, but only if they want to reveal their true motives.

Currently, there is a "gag order" that says no public money can be used to study gun violence. This law was lobbied hard by the NRA. The argument was a libertarian one -- public money shouldn't be used to study anything. If anyone wants to study anything, they should raise their own funds and do their own study, sponsored by corporations or whatever crowd-sourcing they can manage. But that is a false flag. Private corporations can't tell police stations around the country how to report crime. Only the government can do that.

The result of this gag order is that we really don't have good statistics on the causes of gun violence. We can pull up some vague trends, show charts based on information from the FBI statistics, but it's very vague. For one thing, every city, county, and state reports things differently. What is a "mass-shooting"? Some agencies call it a "mass shooting" if a man kills his wife and kid and then himself. Others say it's not a mass shooting unless multiple people who are unrelated are involved. Some say if 10 people are injured but no one dies it's a "mass shooting." Others say there have to be deaths to get that label. So looking at those statistics doesn't really give good results.

Pro-gun advocates argue that "a good man with a gun" will stop "a bad man with a gun." Do the statistics support this? Anecdotes do. There are stories here and there about some citizen hero holding up his gun and scaring away some would-be criminal. But the plural of anecdote is not data. If their argument is true, then the statistics will vindicate them. Release the gag order, and let us study it. If they're right, by all means, let's put guns in the hands of every able-bodied willing man and woman.

The only reason to stop studies would be if you know the studies wouldn't support this.

Which makes you wonder, why did they pass that law in the first place?

I say this now to those on the "anti-gun" side. Most of the legislation being proposed will do next to nothing to curb gun violence. For example. "Let's outlaw assault rifles. No one needs an assault rifle." Okay. Let's pretend we've banned assault rifles. How many gun murders did you prevent? 3%. You really haven't done a &()% thing for the majority of gun violence in this country. Nothing.

And that's why we need to study this stuff. We need better statistics. We need to know what we're up against. We need to know more BEFORE it happens, not only while we're mopping it up. So point two: release the gag order, and let's start studying the underlying causes of gun violence, rather than trying to put band-aids on huge gaping wounds.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
Point 3: Legislating Gun Use without Limiting Gun Rights
Now we get to the hard stuff. The trick is, how do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals without limiting the 2nd Amendment Right of citizens to keep and bear arms? It is a conundrum. No one on the right would say we should just let criminals have as many guns as they want. They agree that criminals shouldn't have guns. The problem is, how do you know who is a criminal and who isn't? They complain that any attempt to limit guns puts undue limits on free citizens, assuming guilt rather than innocence without evidence. So my 3rd point attempts to address this conundrum, by looking at the legitimate uses of guns, vs. any other use.

As I see it, there are 5 legitimate reasons for anyone to have guns.
  1. For hunting and/or sport;
  2. As collection, antique, historical and/or artistic pieces;
  3. For self-protection;
  4. As part of a profession, including public law enforcement, private security, military, etc.;
  5. For complying with the 2nd amendment.
I can think of no other legitimate reason for anyone to have a gun. If anyone can think of something I'm missing, by all means, let me know. I'm more than willing to reconsider. (When I first compiled this list some years back, it was only 3 points, and I have added 2 points due to discussion with other gun advocates.)

I will address each of these purposes, and how we can allow for lawful citizens to have free use under each of those points, with minimal interference or restrictions, and yet prevent, hopefully, at least some of the wrongful uses of guns.

3a. Hunting and Sport
How it works
Every citizen is allowed as many guns as they want for hunting and sport. (See other sections for guns that are for other purposes.) However, each gun must have a hunting or sporting license that gets renewed annually. The gun must be appropriate to the type of game you want to hunt. For example, if your chosen game were "squirrel" you wouldn't be allowed to register an Uzi. Nuff Said. Each type of game would have a list of acceptable gun models, and would have an associated price for that game and that gun. The registration fee would cover administrative costs of the program, insurance, wildlife preservation, etc. If you can afford 20 different licenses, then you can have 20 different guns for this purpose. I envision this program to be administered on a county level.
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
Hunters / sportsmen are already used to paying for hunting licenses. I don't see how having the license match the gun rather than the game is any more restrictive.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
With the license tied to the gun rather than to the game, hunters will be more cognizant of the use of the gun. While we don't have good statistics (see Point 2) as to how often hunting guns get used in crime, if that is an actual problem, having the gun tied to a license (rather than the game) would assist law enforcement.

3b. Collectables
How it works
If you have a gun that is part of a collection and that you never use for any purpose except show (i.e. "My grandpappy used this gun in the Civil War"), as long as you never intend on firing it, you can get a one-time license for it (i.e. it doesn't need to be renewed annually). Again, as long as you never intend on firing it. The license will authenticate its historical significance and provide some insurance. However, if the gun is ever tied to a crime and was not reported stolen, the owner loses the gun.
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
This program should be administered by one or more companies who are independent from any government, and they would only be allowed to report to government agencies with properly obtained warrants. If a citizen actually does have a gun with this significance, they should want to have it protected. And, since the program would be non-government controlled, there's no government overreach.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
Again, I don't know how many criminals use "show pieces" in crimes, but again, tying the gun to the crime is an important step for law enforcement.

3c. Self-protection
How it works
Any citizen may apply for a self-protection CCP/registration. The license/registration would include registering one or two guns (no more than two, because nobody has more than two hands. You don't need more than 2. If you change your mind about the gun, you can change the use for a gun or sell it.) The gun(s) MUST be small enough to be concealed, because if you're using them for self-protection, they need to be concealed. Your application will be denied if you don't pass a basic gun safety test (which should be easy, since everyone is getting basic gun safety in school now), and a national background check that includes a flag for severe mental health. Citizens may apply to have flags on their records expunged. For example, let's say I have a mental health flag because I tried to kill myself when I was 16. I can apply to a board to have it expunged after 20 years by getting a letter from a doctor saying I have a clean bill of health. Or if I was in prison for a non-violent crime that has nothing to do with guns (like, perjury or something like that), I can apply to have it expunged as long as I have met all the terms of my parole. (I think having a criminal record shouldn't necessarily prevent someone from having a gun ... not necessarily.)
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
This one is tough. I admit the requirements for this license are strict, but I think they should be. By far, a vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, so this is where we need to be the most careful. I am open to listening to other ideas, but I think some concessions need to be made by gun advocates on hand guns, since they're so commonly used by criminals. In other words, if gun advocates think this is too much, then give me a better idea to keep guns out of the wrong hands. If you can't think of any better ideas, then concede. "Do nothing" is not an option. Too many people are dying.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
Obviously, criminals are not going to be able to get these licenses. And since the licenses are tied to the guns, again, gun owners will be that much more careful not to let the guns get into the wrong hands.

3d. Professionals
How it works
Police, security, and military already have strict laws governing their firearm use. I don't think additional laws are necessary, unless/until study reveals that significant crimes are caused by guns covered in this category.

3e. 2nd Amendment Use
How it works
Here's the tough one. None of these other uses really gets at what most gun advocates say is the real reason for the 2nd amendment. If you listen to 2A supporters, they'll tell you that the entire reason for that amendment is this: our founding fathers had just gotten rid of a tyrannical government. That government did everything in their power to prevent their subjects from defending themselves. We need guns to defend ourselves in case the government needs overthrowing again.

And after the last four years, I have to say that I agree.

HOWEVER.....

A well-maintained militia is not some guy with 20 AR-15s, a stockpile of grenades, and a rocket-launcher in his basement. That is not well-maintained, and it is not a militia.

On the other hand, forcing such people to register with the government kind of defeats the purpose of having such a militia, does it not?

So here's what I propose:

Any group of people can declare themselves a "militia." This could be "The Springfield Gun Club" or "Firearm Union of Central Kentucky" (I'd join them just for the acronym). The NRA could start a chapter in each county and be a "militia." Hell, let the KKK do it. Each militia is responsible for its members and all the guns of its members. It provides the training for its members, and whatever else it wants to do, within the law. Once the militia registers the minimum -- its name (the name of the militia, not the name of any member) and a PO Box where mail can be sent -- with the state and/or federal government, it is given autonomy to operate without government interference, with the following caveat: if a crime is ever committed by ANY member of that militia, the entire militia loses its status.

Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
I think that's pretty obvious.

How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
I think that's pretty obvious, too. It seems to me this would be self-monitoring. Militias would work really hard to keep their own in line, rather than risk losing their status.

Of course, I can see a potential problem with a militia claiming that its action was lawful. Had such a set-up been in place on 1/6/21, I could totally see a self-proclaimed militia being responsible for it, and insisting that it was performing its patriotic duty. I think our current court system is set up to handle this, and if a jury of peers agree with the militants, they'd be off the hook. That's why we have juries of peers.

So, what say ye? Like I said, I am eager to hear suggestions on improvements for these ideas. What I'm not interested in hearing is, "No, that's not going to work." If you don't like an idea, come up with something better, or temper the specific problem.

Unless you're okay with 7-year-olds being killed.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Point 3: Legislating Gun Use without Limiting Gun Rights
Now we get to the hard stuff. The trick is, how do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals without limiting the 2nd Amendment Right of citizens to keep and bear arms? It is a conundrum. No one on the right would say we should just let criminals have as many guns as they want. They agree that criminals shouldn't have guns. The problem is, how do you know who is a criminal and who isn't? They complain that any attempt to limit guns puts undue limits on free citizens, assuming guilt rather than innocence without evidence. So my 3rd point attempts to address this conundrum, by looking at the legitimate uses of guns, vs. any other use.

As I see it, there are 5 legitimate reasons for anyone to have guns.
  1. For hunting and/or sport;
  2. As collection, antique, historical and/or artistic pieces;
  3. For self-protection;
  4. As part of a profession, including public law enforcement, private security, military, etc.;
  5. For complying with the 2nd amendment.
I can think of no other legitimate reason for anyone to have a gun. If anyone can think of something I'm missing, by all means, let me know. I'm more than willing to reconsider. (When I first compiled this list some years back, it was only 3 points, and I have added 2 points due to discussion with other gun advocates.)

I will address each of these purposes, and how we can allow for lawful citizens to have free use under each of those points, with minimal interference or restrictions, and yet prevent, hopefully, at least some of the wrongful uses of guns.

3a. Hunting and Sport
How it works
Every citizen is allowed as many guns as they want for hunting and sport. (See other sections for guns that are for other purposes.) However, each gun must have a hunting or sporting license that gets renewed annually. The gun must be appropriate to the type of game you want to hunt. For example, if your chosen game were "squirrel" you wouldn't be allowed to register an Uzi. Nuff Said. Each type of game would have a list of acceptable gun models, and would have an associated price for that game and that gun. The registration fee would cover administrative costs of the program, insurance, wildlife preservation, etc. If you can afford 20 different licenses, then you can have 20 different guns for this purpose. I envision this program to be administered on a county level.
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
Hunters / sportsmen are already used to paying for hunting licenses. I don't see how having the license match the gun rather than the game is any more restrictive.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
With the license tied to the gun rather than to the game, hunters will be more cognizant of the use of the gun. While we don't have good statistics (see Point 2) as to how often hunting guns get used in crime, if that is an actual problem, having the gun tied to a license (rather than the game) would assist law enforcement.

3b. Collectables
How it works
If you have a gun that is part of a collection and that you never use for any purpose except show (i.e. "My grandpappy used this gun in the Civil War"), as long as you never intend on firing it, you can get a one-time license for it (i.e. it doesn't need to be renewed annually). Again, as long as you never intend on firing it. The license will authenticate its historical significance and provide some insurance. However, if the gun is ever tied to a crime and was not reported stolen, the owner loses the gun.
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
This program should be administered by one or more companies who are independent from any government, and they would only be allowed to report to government agencies with properly obtained warrants. If a citizen actually does have a gun with this significance, they should want to have it protected. And, since the program would be non-government controlled, there's no government overreach.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
Again, I don't know how many criminals use "show pieces" in crimes, but again, tying the gun to the crime is an important step for law enforcement.

3c. Self-protection
How it works
Any citizen may apply for a self-protection CCP/registration. The license/registration would include registering one or two guns (no more than two, because nobody has more than two hands. You don't need more than 2. If you change your mind about the gun, you can change the use for a gun or sell it.) The gun(s) MUST be small enough to be concealed, because if you're using them for self-protection, they need to be concealed. Your application will be denied if you don't pass a basic gun safety test (which should be easy, since everyone is getting basic gun safety in school now), and a national background check that includes a flag for severe mental health. Citizens may apply to have flags on their records expunged. For example, let's say I have a mental health flag because I tried to kill myself when I was 16. I can apply to a board to have it expunged after 20 years by getting a letter from a doctor saying I have a clean bill of health. Or if I was in prison for a non-violent crime that has nothing to do with guns (like, perjury or something like that), I can apply to have it expunged as long as I have met all the terms of my parole. (I think having a criminal record shouldn't necessarily prevent someone from having a gun ... not necessarily.)
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
This one is tough. I admit the requirements for this license are strict, but I think they should be. By far, a vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, so this is where we need to be the most careful. I am open to listening to other ideas, but I think some concessions need to be made by gun advocates on hand guns, since they're so commonly used by criminals. In other words, if gun advocates think this is too much, then give me a better idea to keep guns out of the wrong hands. If you can't think of any better ideas, then concede. "Do nothing" is not an option. Too many people are dying.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
Obviously, criminals are not going to be able to get these licenses. And since the licenses are tied to the guns, again, gun owners will be that much more careful not to let the guns get into the wrong hands.

3d. Professionals
How it works
Police, security, and military already have strict laws governing their firearm use. I don't think additional laws are necessary, unless/until study reveals that significant crimes are caused by guns covered in this category.

3e. 2nd Amendment Use
How it works
Here's the tough one. None of these other uses really gets at what most gun advocates say is the real reason for the 2nd amendment. If you listen to 2A supporters, they'll tell you that the entire reason for that amendment is this: our founding fathers had just gotten rid of a tyrannical government. That government did everything in their power to prevent their subjects from defending themselves. We need guns to defend ourselves in case the government needs overthrowing again.

And after the last four years, I have to say that I agree.

HOWEVER.....

A well-maintained militia is not some guy with 20 AR-15s, a stockpile of grenades, and a rocket-launcher in his basement. That is not well-maintained, and it is not a militia.

On the other hand, forcing such people to register with the government kind of defeats the purpose of having such a militia, does it not?

So here's what I propose:

Any group of people can declare themselves a "militia." This could be "The Springfield Gun Club" or "Firearm Union of Central Kentucky" (I'd join them just for the acronym). The NRA could start a chapter in each county and be a "militia." Hell, let the KKK do it. Each militia is responsible for its members and all the guns of its members. It provides the training for its members, and whatever else it wants to do, within the law. Once the militia registers the minimum -- its name (the name of the militia, not the name of any member) and a PO Box where mail can be sent -- with the state and/or federal government, it is given autonomy to operate without government interference, with the following caveat: if a crime is ever committed by ANY member of that militia, the entire militia loses its status.

Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
I think that's pretty obvious.

How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
I think that's pretty obvious, too. It seems to me this would be self-monitoring. Militias would work really hard to keep their own in line, rather than risk losing their status.
Of course, I can see a potential problem with a militia claiming that its action was lawful. Had such a set-up been in place on 1/6/21, I could totally see a self-proclaimed militia being responsible for it, and insisting that it was performing its patriotic duty. I think our current court system is set up to handle this, and if a jury of peers agree with the militants, they'd be off the hook. That's why we have juries of peers.
Unless you're okay with 7-year-olds being killed.
As a non-citizen, I will make no comment on this at all. However, I would like to thank you for your post/s which have clarified the situation for me. Most foreigners find the American position on firearms entirely baffling. It is a lot less baffling for me know. Thank you, and I hope that your op gets due consideration from those better placed than I to comment.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
"Gun control vs. gun rights" seems to be one of the more polarizing issues in the US. It seems most people are either adamantly anti-gun or die-hard pro-gun, and at times I wonder if there is any hope for common ground or compromise.

I have come up with a 3-point plan that I think provides compromise between the two extreme sides, and offer it for your debate, discussion, and further exploration.

And I'm limited to 10k characters per message, so this will be split into multiple messages.

Point 1: Education
Here's a point (maybe the only point) where I think most people on both sides would agree. I propose mandatory gun safety education, in the same manner, and for the same reasons, that we currently offer sex ed. I know there are people on the right who bristle at the idea of making anything mandatory, but I would hope they would get behind a program aimed at teaching kids the proper use of firearms, how to make sure the safety is on, how to check to see if a chamber is loaded, identifying the difference between toy guns and real guns, etc. I also know a lot of people on the left might say "My kid doesn't need to know that stuff. They just need to know to stay away from guns, and that's enough." And I would say to them the same thing leftists say to right-wingers when they say the same thing about sex ed. Is it really worth risking your kid's life? If this program saved one life from teaching a kid proper gun handling, will it be worth it?

Point 2: Stop the Gag Order
This one might get some people on the right a bit defensive, but only if they want to reveal their true motives.

Currently, there is a "gag order" that says no public money can be used to study gun violence. This law was lobbied hard by the NRA. The argument was a libertarian one -- public money shouldn't be used to study anything. If anyone wants to study anything, they should raise their own funds and do their own study, sponsored by corporations or whatever crowd-sourcing they can manage. But that is a false flag. Private corporations can't tell police stations around the country how to report crime. Only the government can do that.

The result of this gag order is that we really don't have good statistics on the causes of gun violence. We can pull up some vague trends, show charts based on information from the FBI statistics, but it's very vague. For one thing, every city, county, and state reports things differently. What is a "mass-shooting"? Some agencies call it a "mass shooting" if a man kills his wife and kid and then himself. Others say it's not a mass shooting unless multiple people who are unrelated are involved. Some say if 10 people are injured but no one dies it's a "mass shooting." Others say there have to be deaths to get that label. So looking at those statistics doesn't really give good results.

Pro-gun advocates argue that "a good man with a gun" will stop "a bad man with a gun." Do the statistics support this? Anecdotes do. There are stories here and there about some citizen hero holding up his gun and scaring away some would-be criminal. But the plural of anecdote is not data. If their argument is true, then the statistics will vindicate them. Release the gag order, and let us study it. If they're right, by all means, let's put guns in the hands of every able-bodied willing man and woman.

The only reason to stop studies would be if you know the studies wouldn't support this.

Which makes you wonder, why did they pass that law in the first place?

I say this now to those on the "anti-gun" side. Most of the legislation being proposed will do next to nothing to curb gun violence. For example. "Let's outlaw assault rifles. No one needs an assault rifle." Okay. Let's pretend we've banned assault rifles. How many gun murders did you prevent? 3%. You really haven't done a &()% thing for the majority of gun violence in this country. Nothing.

And that's why we need to study this stuff. We need better statistics. We need to know what we're up against. We need to know more BEFORE it happens, not only while we're mopping it up. So point two: release the gag order, and let's start studying the underlying causes of gun violence, rather than trying to put band-aids on huge gaping wounds.
The Brady bill alone is an overreach. Federal gun bans for life for a misdemeanor offense. Besides all that Nicholas Cruz legally bought a gun due to Obama leniency policies under PROMISE program. Locals knew Cruz was a menace but on paper had a clean record.
-------------------------------------------

Cruz’s first day as a full-time MSD student was January 11, 2016. On February 5, 2016, a woman called the Broward sheriff’s office to report an Instagram post in which Cruz showed off a gun and wrote, “I am going to get this gun and shoot up the school.” The officer who responded to the call,
Cruz’s first day as a full-time MSD student was January 11, 2016. On February 5, 2016, a woman called the Broward sheriff’s office to report an Instagram post in which Cruz showed off a gun and wrote, “I am going to get this gun and shoot up the school.” The officer who responded to the call, Edward Eason, informed the woman that Cruz’s Instagram post “was protected by the First Amendment right of free speech.”

Pollack, Andrew; Eden, Max. Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created The Parkland Shooter and Endanger America's Students . Post Hill Press. Kindle Edition.
-----------------------------------------
Schools need to report students to law enforcement for criminal offenses and not sweep it under the rug. The police need to be allowed to make arrests so they have a public record that may prevent them from legally purchasing firearms.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
The Brady bill alone is an overreach. Federal gun bans for life for a misdemeanor offense. Besides all that Nicholas Cruz legally bought a gun due to Obama leniency policies under PROMISE program. Locals knew Cruz was a menace but on paper had a clean record.
I agree. But that doesn't address anything in my post

Schools need to report students to law enforcement for criminal offenses and not sweep it under the rug. The police need to be allowed to make arrests so they have a public record that may prevent them from legally purchasing firearms.
I'd have to think about this. I suspect most gun advocates would disagree with this measure as a violation of rights. I would also say "criminal offenses" needs to be more specifically addressed, but yes, so far this sounds good.

See, we agree!
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
See, we agree!
Think you are starting with the wrong premise. Gun violence is mostly related to drug activity and most of the drugs are from Mexico. Secure the southern border with eventually result in less gun deaths. That is the exact opposite of what we see Joe Biden doing. Joe Biden's neglect will result in more gun deaths and misery in the United States.
 
Last edited:

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Think you are starting with the wrong premise. Gun violence is mostly related to drug activity and most of the drugs are from Mexico. Secure the southern border with eventually result in less gun deaths. That is the exact opposite of what we see Joe Biden doing. Joe Biden's neglect will result in more gun deaths and misery in the United States.
So Juarez has one of the deadliest homicide rates in this hemisphere.

The only gun store in all of Mexico is located behind a fortress-like wall on a heavily guarded military base in Mexico City. The only gun shop in all of Mexico is behind a fortress-like wall on a heavily guarded military base.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Unless you're okay with 7-year-olds being killed.
Your argumentum verbosium wall of text.

Just for the readers. The cunning way you support abortion is a shame in God's sight.

All 7 year olds at one time were 7 weeks from conception, 7 months from conception.

You need someone to teach you the value of human life. All lives matter. All means all.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
It shows that you've put a lot of time and thought into these proposals. To be frank, I don't have anything to disagree with; I'm neither anti- nor pro- gun, and everything here sounds at least reasonable.

I'm not sure how - collectively - this would impact gun violence demographics, but hey, at least we could then publicly fund a study about it.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Your argumentum verbosium wall of text.

Just for the readers. The cunning way you support abortion is a shame in God's sight.

All 7 year olds at one time were 7 weeks from conception, 7 months from conception.

You need someone to teach you the value of human life. All lives matter. All means all.
Try to actually address the OP. Just try.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I agree with Whateverman. I think a crucial element of your proposals are getting rid of the ban on studies. If we had concrete figures, we'd have a much better basis - and argument - for doing what the needful.
 

Gondwanaland

Active member
"Gun control vs. gun rights" seems to be one of the more polarizing issues in the US. It seems most people are either adamantly anti-gun or die-hard pro-gun, and at times I wonder if there is any hope for common ground or compromise.

I have come up with a 3-point plan that I think provides compromise between the two extreme sides, and offer it for your debate, discussion, and further exploration.

And I'm limited to 10k characters per message, so this will be split into multiple messages.

Point 1: Education
Here's a point (maybe the only point) where I think most people on both sides would agree. I propose mandatory gun safety education, in the same manner, and for the same reasons, that we currently offer sex ed. I know there are people on the right who bristle at the idea of making anything mandatory, but I would hope they would get behind a program aimed at teaching kids the proper use of firearms, how to make sure the safety is on, how to check to see if a chamber is loaded, identifying the difference between toy guns and real guns, etc. I also know a lot of people on the left might say "My kid doesn't need to know that stuff. They just need to know to stay away from guns, and that's enough." And I would say to them the same thing leftists say to right-wingers when they say the same thing about sex ed. Is it really worth risking your kid's life? If this program saved one life from teaching a kid proper gun handling, will it be worth it?

Point 2: Stop the Gag Order
This one might get some people on the right a bit defensive, but only if they want to reveal their true motives.

Currently, there is a "gag order" that says no public money can be used to study gun violence. This law was lobbied hard by the NRA. The argument was a libertarian one -- public money shouldn't be used to study anything. If anyone wants to study anything, they should raise their own funds and do their own study, sponsored by corporations or whatever crowd-sourcing they can manage. But that is a false flag. Private corporations can't tell police stations around the country how to report crime. Only the government can do that.

The result of this gag order is that we really don't have good statistics on the causes of gun violence. We can pull up some vague trends, show charts based on information from the FBI statistics, but it's very vague. For one thing, every city, county, and state reports things differently. What is a "mass-shooting"? Some agencies call it a "mass shooting" if a man kills his wife and kid and then himself. Others say it's not a mass shooting unless multiple people who are unrelated are involved. Some say if 10 people are injured but no one dies it's a "mass shooting." Others say there have to be deaths to get that label. So looking at those statistics doesn't really give good results.

Pro-gun advocates argue that "a good man with a gun" will stop "a bad man with a gun." Do the statistics support this? Anecdotes do. There are stories here and there about some citizen hero holding up his gun and scaring away some would-be criminal. But the plural of anecdote is not data. If their argument is true, then the statistics will vindicate them. Release the gag order, and let us study it. If they're right, by all means, let's put guns in the hands of every able-bodied willing man and woman.

The only reason to stop studies would be if you know the studies wouldn't support this.

Which makes you wonder, why did they pass that law in the first place?

I say this now to those on the "anti-gun" side. Most of the legislation being proposed will do next to nothing to curb gun violence. For example. "Let's outlaw assault rifles. No one needs an assault rifle." Okay. Let's pretend we've banned assault rifles. How many gun murders did you prevent? 3%. You really haven't done a &()% thing for the majority of gun violence in this country. Nothing.

And that's why we need to study this stuff. We need better statistics. We need to know what we're up against. We need to know more BEFORE it happens, not only while we're mopping it up. So point two: release the gag order, and let's start studying the underlying causes of gun violence, rather than trying to put band-aids on huge gaping wounds.
I agree on the first. Back in the day, we literally had a shooting range in my high school. We very clearly need comprehensive gun safety and gun use education for our kids. Far too few parents teach their kids anything, and make the mistake of treating guns as 'forbidden'.

The second.... meh, the gag is largely a myth. I mean, just look at the Obama era. He certainly had no trouble funding his comprehensive CDC study into gun violence and gun use in the US. Though he did promptly bury it when it showed that defensive uses of guns vastly outnumbered the number of gun homicides in the country.
 

Gondwanaland

Active member
Point 3: Legislating Gun Use without Limiting Gun Rights
Now we get to the hard stuff. The trick is, how do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals without limiting the 2nd Amendment Right of citizens to keep and bear arms? It is a conundrum. No one on the right would say we should just let criminals have as many guns as they want. They agree that criminals shouldn't have guns. The problem is, how do you know who is a criminal and who isn't? They complain that any attempt to limit guns puts undue limits on free citizens, assuming guilt rather than innocence without evidence. So my 3rd point attempts to address this conundrum, by looking at the legitimate uses of guns, vs. any other use.

As I see it, there are 5 legitimate reasons for anyone to have guns.
  1. For hunting and/or sport;
  2. As collection, antique, historical and/or artistic pieces;
  3. For self-protection;
  4. As part of a profession, including public law enforcement, private security, military, etc.;
  5. For complying with the 2nd amendment.
I can think of no other legitimate reason for anyone to have a gun. If anyone can think of something I'm missing, by all means, let me know. I'm more than willing to reconsider. (When I first compiled this list some years back, it was only 3 points, and I have added 2 points due to discussion with other gun advocates.)

I will address each of these purposes, and how we can allow for lawful citizens to have free use under each of those points, with minimal interference or restrictions, and yet prevent, hopefully, at least some of the wrongful uses of guns.

3a. Hunting and Sport
How it works
Every citizen is allowed as many guns as they want for hunting and sport. (See other sections for guns that are for other purposes.) However, each gun must have a hunting or sporting license that gets renewed annually. The gun must be appropriate to the type of game you want to hunt. For example, if your chosen game were "squirrel" you wouldn't be allowed to register an Uzi. Nuff Said. Each type of game would have a list of acceptable gun models, and would have an associated price for that game and that gun. The registration fee would cover administrative costs of the program, insurance, wildlife preservation, etc. If you can afford 20 different licenses, then you can have 20 different guns for this purpose. I envision this program to be administered on a county level.
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
Hunters / sportsmen are already used to paying for hunting licenses. I don't see how having the license match the gun rather than the game is any more restrictive.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
With the license tied to the gun rather than to the game, hunters will be more cognizant of the use of the gun. While we don't have good statistics (see Point 2) as to how often hunting guns get used in crime, if that is an actual problem, having the gun tied to a license (rather than the game) would assist law enforcement.

3b. Collectables
How it works
If you have a gun that is part of a collection and that you never use for any purpose except show (i.e. "My grandpappy used this gun in the Civil War"), as long as you never intend on firing it, you can get a one-time license for it (i.e. it doesn't need to be renewed annually). Again, as long as you never intend on firing it. The license will authenticate its historical significance and provide some insurance. However, if the gun is ever tied to a crime and was not reported stolen, the owner loses the gun.
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
This program should be administered by one or more companies who are independent from any government, and they would only be allowed to report to government agencies with properly obtained warrants. If a citizen actually does have a gun with this significance, they should want to have it protected. And, since the program would be non-government controlled, there's no government overreach.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
Again, I don't know how many criminals use "show pieces" in crimes, but again, tying the gun to the crime is an important step for law enforcement.

3c. Self-protection
How it works
Any citizen may apply for a self-protection CCP/registration. The license/registration would include registering one or two guns (no more than two, because nobody has more than two hands. You don't need more than 2. If you change your mind about the gun, you can change the use for a gun or sell it.) The gun(s) MUST be small enough to be concealed, because if you're using them for self-protection, they need to be concealed. Your application will be denied if you don't pass a basic gun safety test (which should be easy, since everyone is getting basic gun safety in school now), and a national background check that includes a flag for severe mental health. Citizens may apply to have flags on their records expunged. For example, let's say I have a mental health flag because I tried to kill myself when I was 16. I can apply to a board to have it expunged after 20 years by getting a letter from a doctor saying I have a clean bill of health. Or if I was in prison for a non-violent crime that has nothing to do with guns (like, perjury or something like that), I can apply to have it expunged as long as I have met all the terms of my parole. (I think having a criminal record shouldn't necessarily prevent someone from having a gun ... not necessarily.)
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
This one is tough. I admit the requirements for this license are strict, but I think they should be. By far, a vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, so this is where we need to be the most careful. I am open to listening to other ideas, but I think some concessions need to be made by gun advocates on hand guns, since they're so commonly used by criminals. In other words, if gun advocates think this is too much, then give me a better idea to keep guns out of the wrong hands. If you can't think of any better ideas, then concede. "Do nothing" is not an option. Too many people are dying.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
Obviously, criminals are not going to be able to get these licenses. And since the licenses are tied to the guns, again, gun owners will be that much more careful not to let the guns get into the wrong hands.

3d. Professionals
How it works
Police, security, and military already have strict laws governing their firearm use. I don't think additional laws are necessary, unless/until study reveals that significant crimes are caused by guns covered in this category.

3e. 2nd Amendment Use
How it works
Here's the tough one. None of these other uses really gets at what most gun advocates say is the real reason for the 2nd amendment. If you listen to 2A supporters, they'll tell you that the entire reason for that amendment is this: our founding fathers had just gotten rid of a tyrannical government. That government did everything in their power to prevent their subjects from defending themselves. We need guns to defend ourselves in case the government needs overthrowing again.

And after the last four years, I have to say that I agree.

HOWEVER.....

A well-maintained militia is not some guy with 20 AR-15s, a stockpile of grenades, and a rocket-launcher in his basement. That is not well-maintained, and it is not a militia.

On the other hand, forcing such people to register with the government kind of defeats the purpose of having such a militia, does it not?

So here's what I propose:

Any group of people can declare themselves a "militia." This could be "The Springfield Gun Club" or "Firearm Union of Central Kentucky" (I'd join them just for the acronym). The NRA could start a chapter in each county and be a "militia." Hell, let the KKK do it. Each militia is responsible for its members and all the guns of its members. It provides the training for its members, and whatever else it wants to do, within the law. Once the militia registers the minimum -- its name (the name of the militia, not the name of any member) and a PO Box where mail can be sent -- with the state and/or federal government, it is given autonomy to operate without government interference, with the following caveat: if a crime is ever committed by ANY member of that militia, the entire militia loses its status.

Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
I think that's pretty obvious.

How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
I think that's pretty obvious, too. It seems to me this would be self-monitoring. Militias would work really hard to keep their own in line, rather than risk losing their status.

Of course, I can see a potential problem with a militia claiming that its action was lawful. Had such a set-up been in place on 1/6/21, I could totally see a self-proclaimed militia being responsible for it, and insisting that it was performing its patriotic duty. I think our current court system is set up to handle this, and if a jury of peers agree with the militants, they'd be off the hook. That's why we have juries of peers.

So, what say ye? Like I said, I am eager to hear suggestions on improvements for these ideas. What I'm not interested in hearing is, "No, that's not going to work." If you don't like an idea, come up with something better, or temper the specific problem.

Unless you're okay with 7-year-olds being killed.
Just nope. Gun ownership is a right. Not something to be licensed. Cannot agree with any sort of licensing scheme.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Biden answered “no” in response to the question “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” as part of the background check. The check was administered on the Firearms Transaction Record Biden filled out in order to purchase a .38 revolver on October 12, 2018.

Hunter lied to buy a gun
 

Thistle

Well-known member
well-maintained militia is not some guy with 20 AR-15s, a stockpile of grenades, and a rocket-launcher in his basement. That is not well-maintained, and it is not a militia.
A well regulated militia in constitutional language means every able-bodied man who owns a gun. It does not mean the National Guard or the Continental Army or any other organized group. All the citizens have their own guns and if they need to call together a militia that can be done because they're all gun owners. And as for rocket launchers in the basement, if we go back to the kind of weapons the people owned when this language was perfected, people owned privately battleships that were outfitted with full blown cannons, and they were called privateers. Your problem is, the second amendment does not mean what do you think it means.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Point 3: Legislating Gun Use without Limiting Gun Rights
Now we get to the hard stuff. The trick is, how do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals without limiting the 2nd Amendment Right of citizens to keep and bear arms? It is a conundrum. No one on the right would say we should just let criminals have as many guns as they want. They agree that criminals shouldn't have guns. The problem is, how do you know who is a criminal and who isn't? They complain that any attempt to limit guns puts undue limits on free citizens, assuming guilt rather than innocence without evidence. So my 3rd point attempts to address this conundrum, by looking at the legitimate uses of guns, vs. any other use.

As I see it, there are 5 legitimate reasons for anyone to have guns.
  1. For hunting and/or sport;
  2. As collection, antique, historical and/or artistic pieces;
  3. For self-protection;
  4. As part of a profession, including public law enforcement, private security, military, etc.;
  5. For complying with the 2nd amendment.
I can think of no other legitimate reason for anyone to have a gun. If anyone can think of something I'm missing, by all means, let me know. I'm more than willing to reconsider. (When I first compiled this list some years back, it was only 3 points, and I have added 2 points due to discussion with other gun advocates.)

I will address each of these purposes, and how we can allow for lawful citizens to have free use under each of those points, with minimal interference or restrictions, and yet prevent, hopefully, at least some of the wrongful uses of guns.

3a. Hunting and Sport
How it works
Every citizen is allowed as many guns as they want for hunting and sport. (See other sections for guns that are for other purposes.) However, each gun must have a hunting or sporting license that gets renewed annually. The gun must be appropriate to the type of game you want to hunt. For example, if your chosen game were "squirrel" you wouldn't be allowed to register an Uzi. Nuff Said. Each type of game would have a list of acceptable gun models, and would have an associated price for that game and that gun. The registration fee would cover administrative costs of the program, insurance, wildlife preservation, etc. If you can afford 20 different licenses, then you can have 20 different guns for this purpose. I envision this program to be administered on a county level.
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
Hunters / sportsmen are already used to paying for hunting licenses. I don't see how having the license match the gun rather than the game is any more restrictive.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
With the license tied to the gun rather than to the game, hunters will be more cognizant of the use of the gun. While we don't have good statistics (see Point 2) as to how often hunting guns get used in crime, if that is an actual problem, having the gun tied to a license (rather than the game) would assist law enforcement.

3b. Collectables
How it works
If you have a gun that is part of a collection and that you never use for any purpose except show (i.e. "My grandpappy used this gun in the Civil War"), as long as you never intend on firing it, you can get a one-time license for it (i.e. it doesn't need to be renewed annually). Again, as long as you never intend on firing it. The license will authenticate its historical significance and provide some insurance. However, if the gun is ever tied to a crime and was not reported stolen, the owner loses the gun.
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
This program should be administered by one or more companies who are independent from any government, and they would only be allowed to report to government agencies with properly obtained warrants. If a citizen actually does have a gun with this significance, they should want to have it protected. And, since the program would be non-government controlled, there's no government overreach.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
Again, I don't know how many criminals use "show pieces" in crimes, but again, tying the gun to the crime is an important step for law enforcement.

3c. Self-protection
How it works
Any citizen may apply for a self-protection CCP/registration. The license/registration would include registering one or two guns (no more than two, because nobody has more than two hands. You don't need more than 2. If you change your mind about the gun, you can change the use for a gun or sell it.) The gun(s) MUST be small enough to be concealed, because if you're using them for self-protection, they need to be concealed. Your application will be denied if you don't pass a basic gun safety test (which should be easy, since everyone is getting basic gun safety in school now), and a national background check that includes a flag for severe mental health. Citizens may apply to have flags on their records expunged. For example, let's say I have a mental health flag because I tried to kill myself when I was 16. I can apply to a board to have it expunged after 20 years by getting a letter from a doctor saying I have a clean bill of health. Or if I was in prison for a non-violent crime that has nothing to do with guns (like, perjury or something like that), I can apply to have it expunged as long as I have met all the terms of my parole. (I think having a criminal record shouldn't necessarily prevent someone from having a gun ... not necessarily.)
Why this isn't government overreach or undue meddling
This one is tough. I admit the requirements for this license are strict, but I think they should be. By far, a vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, so this is where we need to be the most careful. I am open to listening to other ideas, but I think some concessions need to be made by gun advocates on hand guns, since they're so commonly used by criminals. In other words, if gun advocates think this is too much, then give me a better idea to keep guns out of the wrong hands. If you can't think of any better ideas, then concede. "Do nothing" is not an option. Too many people are dying.
How this could keep guns out of the hands of criminals
Obviously, criminals are not going to be able to get these licenses. And since the licenses are tied to the guns, again, gun owners will be that much more careful not to let the guns get into the wrong hands.

3d. Professionals
How it works
Police, security, and military already have strict laws governing their firearm use. I don't think additional laws are necessary, unless/until study reveals that significant crimes are caused by guns covered in this category.

3e. 2nd Amendment Use
How it works
Here's the tough one. None of these other uses really gets at what most gun advocates say is the real reason for the 2nd amendment. If you listen to 2A supporters, they'll tell you that the entire reason for that amendment is this: our founding fathers had just gotten rid of a tyrannical government. That government did everything in their power to prevent their subjects from defending themselves. We need guns to defend ourselves in case the government needs overthrowing again.

CUT the rest
I have to cut your post to respond to it using the quote function because it is too long.

The Constitution does not say that.

Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the duty and responsibility to put down armed insurrections.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that people have the right to overthrow the government.
If we don't like the govt, we have the right to vote to remove them from office.

If you think the Constitution gives us the right to attack and take down a govt, please cite that section. It is not there. Not anywhere.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Think you are starting with the wrong premise. Gun violence is mostly related to drug activity and most of the drugs are from Mexico. Secure the southern border with eventually result in less gun deaths. That is the exact opposite of what we see Joe Biden doing. Joe Biden's neglect will result in more gun deaths and misery in the United States.
Actually, most gun deaths are suicides. Some of these might be related to drug use, but certainly not most.
 

vibise

Well-known member
I agree with Whateverman. I think a crucial element of your proposals are getting rid of the ban on studies. If we had concrete figures, we'd have a much better basis - and argument - for doing what the needful.
Sorry, but conservatives refuse to accept data on climate change, the effectiveness of vaccines, that the 2020 election was legitimate, that evolution is based on science, etc.....
Why do you think they would accept studies on gun violence?
 

vibise

Well-known member
Just nope. Gun ownership is a right. Not something to be licensed. Cannot agree with any sort of licensing scheme.
Why can't rights be licensed? Do you think everyone should be able to buy and own a gun? How about 169 guns? Can people own any type of gun? Where do you draw the limit?
 

vibise

Well-known member
A well regulated militia in constitutional language means every able-bodied man who owns a gun. It does not mean the National Guard or the Continental Army or any other organized group. All the citizens have their own guns and if they need to call together a militia that can be done because they're all gun owners. And as for rocket launchers in the basement, if we go back to the kind of weapons the people owned when this language was perfected, people owned privately battleships that were outfitted with full blown cannons, and they were called privateers. Your problem is, the second amendment does not mean what do you think it means.
Why would we need such a set of militias when we have the most well-funded standing army in the world?
Who on earth thinks a bunch of gun-toting Rambos could come together as a real fighting force? These people are not well-regulated, nor do they have any professional training that would make them effective. This is just a way to allow these gun lovers to have their guns without responsibility for the damage they do to society.
 
Top