re: Would you be for more stringent gun license requirements

No I’d rather not have someone determine if I can own a firearm because that puts my ability to own one at the whim of someone’s opinion.

You know how the media has referred to anything related to patriotism as Russian bots? When someone has the power to strap a label on you for simply wanting more freedom, that’s way too much power in someone’s hands over me. Then watch your gun rights go bye bye.

The second amendment is designed to empower the individual, not the collective (the government). The federalist papers reflects this as 2A is ultimately the right of the individual.

EDIT: Forgot to respond to the “neighboring states” argument, i.e. “he can just go to state X and get a gun.”

This doesn’t follow logically. If the availability or obtainability of the firearm is the cause of the violent crime rate, why isn’t the crime rate the exact same in the neighboring state or even higher due to looser gun laws? Anything here to rebut that point with something other than guns proves that it is not the availability of guns that drives crime but the intent of the user. Plus the person is committing a crime of transporting a gun across state lines and doesn’t care. Finding the root cause and diagnosing that would be more effective.

quote:

---

We’re American and thus meet the standard unless dictated otherwise by judges

---

There is a whole lot of truth in that, 2nd amendment and all.

quote:

---

in which that does nothing keeping weapons out of criminals anyways

---

That is a meaningless statement. Laws requiring a drivers license, car insurance, hunting and fishing licenses, etc. do nothing to prevent law breakers from doing the things that the law requires. It does not mean that that law is necessarily a bad thing.

I am cautious about licensing and collecting data on gun owners. But the fact that scoff laws will inevitably ignore any new laws regarding licensing does not invalidate the possible usefulness of said laws. That should be judged on its own merit overall.

I'd have no problem requiring a permit/license. They already do a background check anyways, a quick one time interview would prove that I am not insane and don't have any plans to commit a mass shooting.

The people that are hard against guns and hard for guns are going to frick this up for everyone because no one will compromise.

Bill Burr said it best on his podcast the other day

"The people on the hard left think guns are alive running around killing people on their own. People on the hard right wanna buy a fricking bazooka to defend their home. There's no way to compromise with either side and it's going to frick over the normal people"

quote:

---

a quick one time interview would prove that I am not insane and don't have any plans to commit a mass shooting.

---

Such a naive way of thinking. Who conducts the interview? Who determines what characteristics they are looking for in the interview?

quote:

---

The people that are hard against guns and hard for guns are going to frick this up for everyone because no one will compromise.

---

frick what up? "Shall not be infringed", it's right there in the Constitution. "For gun" people have given up ground at every turn over the last fifty years, what have the anti-gun people given up? Oh yeah, nothing.

quote:

---

People on the hard right wanna buy a fricking bazooka to defend their home. There's no way to compromise with either side and it's going to frick over the normal people"

---

No they don't. Nobody wants a fricking bazooka, that's blatant hyperbole by a comedian. Normal, law-abiding people want to be able to live their lives and have the ability to purchase a firearm of their choice if they decide to.

quote:

---

Normal, law-abiding people want to be able to live their lives and have the ability to purchase a firearm of their choice if they decide to.

---

which you would still be able to do as long as you don't act like a fricking psycho in your interview

quote:

---

Laws requiring a drivers license, hunting and fishing licenses, etc. do nothing to prevent law breakers from doing the things that the law requires. It does not mean that that law is necessarily a bad thing.

---

car insurance does not belong in that group.

the rest are essentially forms of taxes.

quote:

---

No. Just a system to establish mental capacity to own firearms. Once you pass the process you are free to obtain as many firearms as you please. This is more in line of a hunters safety course, or a background check to coach little league, or passing a CDL test.

---

The whole "mentally ill" aspect of the gun debate is not as easy as you think.

It's not easy to ask a court to adjudicate someone as mentally unfit.

Do you want police officers to make that determination? I don't think you do.

quote:

---

the rest are essentially forms of taxes.

---

Drivers licenses require you pass certain knowledge, skill and vision tests either initially or continuously (vision), so are a bit more than a tax. I only mention insurance because it is a legal requirement that people sometimes (maybe often) ignore.

Most licensing does seem to be more about revenue than anything else, though.

quote:

---

Drivers licenses require you pass certain knowledge, skill and vision tests either initially or continuously (vision), so are a bit more than a tax.

---

to put in a more appropriate comparison, we don't have to go do psychotic evals to determine if we have a propentency to drink and drive etc. You are good until you break laws have your DL taken away. No different than a judge taking away your gun rights as is.