There's this word. It means "to provide gratification for others' desires".
I can't remember the word.

...insuring my car.

Most of these people have no business owning a weapon. Certainly, I don’t feel safe with they have such a device when they consistently fail to show proper judgement in appearing with the weapon. A political rally? Bad call. A school? Bad call. A movie house or theater or restaurant? Bad fucking call.

If they clearly show they cannot be trusted to show proper judgement, they should not have a weapon.

I have no problem with the bill.

Let me help:

You need to see into the future:

a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person

You give up any sense of privacy:

The Attorney General shall make the contents of the database accessible to all members of the public...

If you are under 21 you have no rights under this law

...has attained 21 years of age;

Have psychological screening

undergoes a psychological evaluation conducted in accordance with paragraph (2), and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm;

Live with someone who owns a gun?

the evaluation included a psychological evaluation of other members of the household in which the individual resides

and

the licensed psychologist interviewed any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.

Smoke dope? Medical or otherwise?

No license for you if you are addicted to a controlled substance (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act)

Now, lets get into the poll tax equivalent

has successfully completed a training course
(which you have to pay for)
undergoes a psychological evaluation
(which you have to pay for)
the individual will have in effect an insurance policy
(which you have to pay for)

back to the accessibility to the information:
What you own
Where you store
All entered into a database, accessible by anyone.

Now, of course seeing the Attorney General determines
The people who are authorized to train
The people who are authorized to do the psych eval
there is no chance, whatsoever, under any possible circumstance that there could be so few people certified to perform either the authorization or evaluation that it becomes de facto impossible to obtain either within a reasonable time frame : :

I hope no one comes for any of the civil rights you hold dear with the same level of obstruction.

I have no problem with it. If fact, any reasonable person would have no problem with it. And if this serves to stop people of poor judgement from owning a weapon, then it fulfills my requirement for the law.

See: Fallacy of prejudicial language.

It means that if you care about this right you suitably curate that right to preserve it. That means following a reasonable set of metrics assuring that those who shouldn’t have a weapon don’t get one. This is the essence of responsible gun ownership.

It is an independent metric by adults for adults.

From 2012:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/117283228#post1

Plenty of antigun demagogues have used the same (or similar) tactics here at DU and elsewhere over the years-
the disinterested reader is invited to peruse the following thread from 2013:

"NRA talking points"? How about anti-gun talking points?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665

There's a response of mine in there that's germane to the discussion we've been having:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665#post29

It has to do with responsible gun ownership and the application of an independent standard to ensure the 2nd Amendment far into the future. That bill is an excellent start to this process.

Also, a demagogue will want you to bring your own gun, it’s a cheaper solution for the accounting people. Just look at the events of January 6th. There is a very big difference in people who want to shove a gun into your hands - or worse - repeatedly hammer into you through fear and intimidation until you yourself accept the lie - but fail to train your critical thinking skills. When I was younger, I could count on the NRA to teach this difference. Not any longer, and certainly not since they’ve started taking Russian dollars.

My last word on this is a video. I strongly recommend supporting the bill with your representatives.

Generalities such as:

IMHO, debate with those where no common ground exists is more like giving singing lessons to...
...Well, you get the idea.

...3D printers or making them illegal. Maybe I'm wrong but I also haven't seen anything anything about certain tools and 80% items either. I think some of these relationships between laws, control and people can be expressed by saying the that tighter regulations may greatly reduce prevalence but any knowledge about the possession items in actual circulation becomes completely obscured.

I read about Mr. Heisenberg long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

It's the very same mindset, albeit applied to a differnt cause:

Loudly claim it's for "safety" reasons, when it's really designed to restrict "those people"...

...a firearm that has a feed system that accepts more than one magazine.

"...has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition..."

Goddammit

...and basically bans all private sales.

Insurance never covers criminal acts.

If this isn't buried in commitee, it *will* be used against Dems in 2022.

As krispos42 alluded to, marginal seats in purple districts will be lost.
And, once again, it will be demonstrated that gun controllers prefer no loaf at all to half a loaf...

It will do nothing to stop criminals from obtaining firearms.
It will do nothing to prevent criminals from using firearms to commit crimes.
It will never get enough votes, in either chamber, to pass.
It will do nothing except fuel further firearms sales and give credence to the "They're comin' for our guns" crowd.
The bill might generate some support from anti-gun rights people, but it is, as melm00se stated, essentially DOA.