The Russia guy is gonna keep doing Russia shit. Got it.

The fact it’s even being considered is very telling once one understands it’s entirely and obviously unconstitutional.

No, that’s the Democrats. The Republicans are openly complicit.

If you’re unable to comprehend the importance of controlling the populations of invasive species, this conversation can serve no purpose.

There is nothing quite so uniquely irritating as someone who is intensely critical of something they know very little about.

By defend crops do you mean kill things?

Yes. White-tailed deer are invasive, eat crops, and cause many single-car accidents in rural areas where emergency services can take 30-45 minutes to respond, if you have cell service to call them. It’s very desirable to hunt them during mating season to control their population. Wild boar are also invasive, eat crops, and leave giant ruts that damage equipment.

There can be exceptions for specific people to own specific types of guns that would make mass shootings impossible.

There is an unfortunately significant overlap between guns ideal for completely legitimate and responsible purposes and guns ideal for committing horrible atrocities.

Eg. If it is a heavy rifle that takes minutes to reload.

Hunting often involves walking long distances into remote areas. For this reason, hunters often desire the lightest rifle they can find that will get the job done. In fact, one of the reasons the AR-15 was so popular when it was introduced to the civilian market (as a hunting rifle with a 5-round magazine, btw) is because it was two pounds lighter (six pounds instead of eight) than the Ruger Mini 14, which was the most popular hunting rifle at the time.

Also, hunting often involves putting yourself in the same areas bears and other dangerous animals call their home. Not being prey is the first rule of hunting. The type of rifle you’re suggesting would offer significant challenges to a hunter who needed to defend themselves from a wild animal.

Until the root causes and societal factors that contribute to violence are addressed, any ban serves only to disarm and criminalize what is an otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizenry.

My original point was that the entire process becomes streamlined so long as you don’t mind presenting yourself as a conservative.

Well I’m glad you clarified then. For a minute there, I thought your original point was that an FFL was an easy loophole to legal machine gun and suppressor ownership in California. Since the ATF regulates FFLs, how does one “present themself as a conservative” during a presumably remote, paper-driven process?

Gun owners have been giving ample time to come up with a solution but have resist every effort

The lack of legislative action in the US to address gun deaths and gun violence isn’t because gun owners in the US don’t want it, it’s because of the regulatory and legal capture that’s been building in this country over the past half a century or so. Every gun owner I know would like (or at least wouldn’t mind) seeing some sensible measures in place that significantly reduce the number of gun deaths in the US. We also agree that the most effective way to reduce gun deaths and gun violence is to address the root causes and societal factors that contribute to them; poverty, homelessness, drug use, mental health, police training, and so on. If you really want to prevent these deaths, address those first. Most gun owners, in fact, most Americans, agree these things should happen, do advocate for them, and would vote for them, but the sad reality of our political system means these interests aren’t represented.

You feeling punished is immaterial

You’re right, it’s about much more than just me and my feelings; allow me to word my argument more appropriately.

The vast, VAST majority (over 99%) of gun owners in the US exercise their right to bear arms responsibly. Less than one percent of gun owners in the US commit all gun violence on US soil (since shootings on military bases and US embassies abroad contribute to the statistics, I’ll refer to them too).

To restrict the rights of everyone, including everyone who doesn’t exercise that right, and everyone who exercises that right responsibly, because one percent of the people who do exercise that right, abuse it, is not a net benefit to, and should be a very concerning proposition to a free society.

That is a disappointingly low number

Correct. To my knowledge, there is no legal way to possess a suppressor or high capacity magazine in California, under their current laws. In (almost) all other states, high capacity magazines are not regulated, and suppressors can be legally obtained with a $200 tax stamp and NFA form.

I’m not from California, so I’m not as familiar with their laws, but I find the idea of an easy loophole to suppressor ownership very difficult to believe.

So, you want to take away rights from all people, even those who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own firearms, because a very small minority of people abused those same rights? Why should I be punished because someone else broke the law? How is that not a violation of my sixth ammendment right to due process?

If I were interested in being snarky, this is where I would tell you to think like an adult, not a tyrant.

Some of us live in rural areas and use guns almost daily to defend crops and livestock from pests and predators. How should those people “adjust”?

You must be confusing a CCW (Concealed Carry of a Weapon) permit with an FFL (Federal Firearms License).

A CCW is obtainable by almost anyone who is over 21 and not a convicted felon, and allows you carry a concealed weapon, such as a handgun or a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches.

An FFL is obtainable by business-owners who pass extensive background checks with the ATF and allows them to legally sell firearms to other people.

A CCW can be obtained over a weekend or two. An FFL takes months of paperwork, interviews, background checks, and filing fees.

If you don’t believe me, please go try and obtain an FFL. I’d be very interested to learn how far you get.

I’m not certain if you’re referring to the border with Mexico or the rest of the US, but if a weapon is banned in California, it’s also banned to import one into California from another US state.

Setting up checkpoints and checking every car coming in for weapons would be a violation of every citizens’ right to travel, and fourth ammendment right against unreasonable searches.

So, how do you propose to implement “better birder control” without violating the rights of citizens who have committed crime?

Your suggestion, if implemented, would result in only the wealthy having a right to self preservation. Are you certain it would be a good idea to consolidate even more power into their hands and further entrench their monopoly on violence?

Millions of Californians already legally own Glock handguns. Enforcing the law in this case refers to confiscating the legally acquired private property of citizens who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own their property. How do you reconcile your suggestion to enforce the law with those Californians’ fourth ammendment right against unreasonable search and seizure of private property and their six ammendment right to due process?

Incentive programs are one idea, but they do have some problems, the biggest and most obvious being: how much do you offer, who’s going to pay for it, and what do you do with them once you have them?

A Glock handgun retails for $500 - 600. Do you offer that much? If so, that will be very expensive, and now that they’re banned, you won’t be able to sell them for nearly that much to recoup the cost. If you offer less, how is that not a violation of one’s fourth ammendment right against unreasonable seizure of private property?

Should gun manufacturers be responsible for bearing the cost of reimbursing every Glock-owning Californian, or should the citizens who voted for the measure pay for it since they wanted it?

Once all the Glocks are confiscated, what should be done with them? If they’re sold, that just moves the “problem” elsewhere. If they’re destroyed, that’s a waste of perfectly working steel and polymer you just paid good money for.

I’m glad we agree the root causes of violence need to be addressed.

I don’t think bans can ever be fully effective unless we, as a society, are willing to violate every gun owner’s second, fourth, fifth, and sixth ammendment rights; I believe that may be some of the problems you’re referring to.

Personally, in addition the other changes you mentioned, I’d like to see a very small tax on gun sales to fund firearm safety and education programs in public schools. If the US wants to embrace firearms as a part of our culture the same way we do cars, I think it’s reasonable to require firearm education the same way we require driver’s education.

California has the strictest gun laws in the US. They passed legislation a few weeks ago that bans owning any Glock handguns in the state (unless you’re a cop, of course) that goes into effect Jan 1, 2026. AR-15s and all other so called “assault weapons” have been banned for years. Plus, it’s still illegal to shoot people. What else do you think needs to happen?