Life no parole penalty. Drain the gun swamp!!

What's proposed is almost certain to change, and probably drastically, before it's passed ... if ever.

Better to start with something egregious-sounding, and negotiate it down from there.

Many of those costs would not be PER GUN, btw.

Someone was kind enough to point out that the link wasn't there, so I edited it in.

And just one license. A person does not have to have a seperate drivers license for each and every vehicle the person owns, but does have to have them individually registered.

The license in a lot of states could serve as their "Real ID"

my comment about fees was in the first sentence. It’s just a start, fees will be negotiated in further drafts to be more realistic.

With what has happed the last few months with wrong wing violence this should get fast tracked..

with someone such as yourself who desires some aspects of the framework of the bill but acknowledges that the details are ridiculous. In contrast, someone who upon being informed that the bill would result in owning a single firearm costiing $50,000 and that possessing a single magazine that holds 11 rounds would result in decades of jail time and says "Sounds good to me!"is beyond hope.

Reads like something the NRA would write.

... and Republicans make open-carry legal, I would suggest that Democrats shut up about gun control, get into power, outlaw open carry.... And then shut up again about gun control.

I'll even give you the law. "Open carry of firearms is prohibited at all times within municipal limits, except as where and when expressly permitted by municipal ordinance".

I don't care if they have slung rifles or holstered pistols out in the sticks. But inside city limits, it's concealed only unless the city expressly says otherwise.

IMO this group (HR 127) of proposed regulations is so onerous and burdensome as to have little chance of any consideration. What gain is imagined from getting the government into the insurance business?

I can't really take this seriously.

Thankfully, there are no co-sponsors so far, a fact which should cause some sighs of relief for Dem reps in purple districts...

...2 out of 3 "control" advocates are hung up on the "unreasoned acceptance" (aka religious type belief) that a law will actually "control" criminal behavior. This is plainly wrong since at some point in their courses of action they point a gun at another person. I conclude that they have considered the immediate and also the eventual possible consequences and continue with the assault. Desperation can result in many unfortunate events.

I believe that this is one cause for violence that must be fought against.
Improving the lives of people especially about aspects that lead people into criminal behavior is more productive than restarting prohibition.

I know some of the restriction favoring folk justify the laws and demands for licenses and insurance with ideas about the militia and the miller decision, etc. What I can't believe is that they think some of these ideas will help.

Don’t see your point.

In the picture is a 17 year old carrying a semiautomatic gun in a state for which he doesn’t live in, walking the streets hunting other people that he disagrees with. That kind of flys in the face of their self defense argument for having guns.
Registration without investigation alone will not solve this issue, even background checks and mental evaluations would eliminate all of the issues. The more difficult that it is to obtain the guns the less likely people will own them.
But none that was my point, I asked the question of all of those other suggestions, what do you suggest be done to change it?

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Precisely because he could not legally purchase and own a gun. Registration would not have made a difference.

Stronger background checks are needed, especially for private sales. A rigorous gun owner ID card program would be more useful than registration.

This kind of legislative nonsense is pure oxygen for these yahoos and their beliefs. It confirms all their paranoid fantasies and gives them a rallying cry, a concrete cause, a raison d'être, while doing little or nothing to actually promote public safety. Without the gun issue, all they're left with is racism, and that one is still relatively uncomfortable and divisive for the far right.

There are LWNJs to balance the RWNJs.

The simple fact is that owning a weapon is and should be a complex affair. If you cannot afford these basic costs of doing business how will you afford correcting the problems that will arise when you misuse the weapon, either deliberately or accidentally?

I remember a time when my wife walked our dog. She was standing behind a tree not twenty feet from our car. The car was in the parking lot just behind the building that had our apartment. While she picked up after the dog, the tree right near her head simply obliterated. She cried out in surprise. The hunter who thought she was a deer popped out and apologized and begged her not to call the cops. She just exploded and this guy just ran away! She called the cops and gave a description.

This lack of judgement, the inability to stand up for the process or to stand responsibly for the use of the weapon is important for the continued health of the 2nd. This bill goes a long way to ensuring this and if it means disqualifying some gun owners, then that’s what it means. For the rest of us who are responsible gun owners, it means protecting the 2nd without bullshit.

someone's life for them to be allowed to own a single firearm "protects" the 2nd Amenedment?

This is a previous reply to your interlocutor:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=209943

You offer little more than glittering generalities and superlatives in defense of HR 127

Generalities such as:

was violating more than one law. Hunting in urban area. Discharging weapon in urban area/close to residences, etc. He may jump through all the hoops you set, but is still an idiot when it comes to target identification.

And you think $50,000 for one firearm is a "basic cost"? Other than insurance for an accident, all the other fees are $ for the govt coffers. There are a lot of people in jail that "misuse" firearms. Some accidently, most were on purpose. Try selling insurance for a purposeful act.

"Sounds fair" = Throw enough at the wall and some will stick.

What can I say? I know a lucid and carefully reasoned opinion when I see one.