Would you vote for me?

I think I figured out a solution to gun control, gun imports, and everything else. I've used the licensing for getting a CDL (commercial driver's license) as a model. Both sides would have to have some give and take.


Let me walk you through it:
So you (a prospective firearms enthusiast) would get a firearms permit when you were at least 18. It would have endorsements on it, similar to my CDL. One for handgun, one for semi-auto, another one for full auto, etc. This would be a one-time thing, you take a written test (like for your drivers license) and then maybe a 10-minute safety demo in front of an instructor, and then DONE you're certified for life to purchase all weapons allowed under your endorsement(s). No endorsements = shotguns and bolt actions only. The more endorsements, the more education/ frequent doctor's notes; more on that below.
No waiting period, everything is done instantly by computer. Serial numbers are registered by the gun seller and not your responsibility at all.
Private transactions: filling out a brief transfer form that can be done online.

They (gun control advocates) would allow:
1. Easing of all import restrictions
2. Elimination of so-called """assault weapon""" restrictions and tax stamps.
3. Decreased waiting period for all weapons.
4. Any additional restrictions would be decided at the local (county and city level). There would be like 3 tiers of restrictions, and each jurisdiction could pick one. So NYC and rural California counties would each have a spectrum to chose from, so everyone could be happy.
5. Shorter process for vets, fees waived.

We, as a collective group (gun owners), would in turn allow
1. Doctor's note every X years for certain endorsements (probably just full-auto). So for an M60 you'd need to pass several classes and maybe a note every year.
2. Revoking of endorsements/permits for repeated irresponsible behavior (domestic violence, threats, felonies). Capped at a max % of permit holders per year (

Other urls found in this thread:

fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/MedicalExaminationReportForm_091616_MCSA_5875.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

What part about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

>shall
>not
>be
>infringed

I wouldn't vote a nigger like you to represent me in a class project.
Shall
Not
Be
Infringed

>shall not be infringed
>is already infringed in stupid nonsensical ways
>a shoestring is an assault weapon
>a foregrip is an assault weapon

I'm just trying to make everyone happier. Rural counties would get freed from the shackles imposed on them by the big cities.
More guns would be legal AND cheaper.

And I'm just trying to be pragmatic. A gun grabber has the same vote as any of you. You have to deal with these people. No matter how much we scream 'shall not be infringed' it gets infringed. Might as well make it infringed in a way that rewards responsible gun owners.

But maybe if we chant SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED a few more times the ATF will magically disappear in a puff of smoke?

honestly, that sounds like shit. I would have far fewer freedoms under that law, and the only reconciliation is i can get new slavshit and maybe a useless FA and only if my doctor isnt a liberal? And i have to take classes and get notes every single year?

Fuck that. Not to mention that the left has demonstrated they have no interest in compromise, they would agree to it and then immediately start trying to take away what they just agreed to

>trying to make everyone happy
impossible. simply put, just fuck over the leftists and let people do what they want.

Those gungrabbing fucks have made it VERY clear they're not interested in compromise. Feinstein herself has said she won't stop until there are no more guns in civilian hands in the US. You cannot reason with them, so the only stance you can take is a hardline one.

that sounds great and all, but you fail to understand that any restriction what sowever i.e. giving someone the RIGHT to take away your guns) is counter to the idea of "nobody should be able to take away your guns.

arbitrary stipulations like medical and licensing requirements can also result in cases where discrimination occurs (i.e look at tests used to stop blacks from voting in the south) or saying "user went to the hostpital and is on mind altering pain killers for his leg that got chopped off, he should not have guns"

your plan would also establish a pseudo registry which has been outlawed on a federal level

Just notes, and just for full auto (maybe only certain calibers). To check you for drug addiction and if you're schizo.
And your doctors political beliefs don't matter. They would fill out a form similar to this
fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/MedicalExaminationReportForm_091616_MCSA_5875.pdf

They could only flag you for egregious violations, like talking to yourself or track marks on your arm.

I honestly think the biggest change would be setting restrictions at the county/city level. One size doesn't fit all and it's outrageous that just because restrictions make more sense in a densely-populated metropolis they have to apply to rural areas equally.


>the left has demonstrated they have no interest in compromise
Just to play Devil's advocate... look at the first three replies to this thread and tell me how concerned with compromise all of you are.

>I don't have to because reasons
Well then I guess nothing changes. If you're happy with the way things are, then by all means, keep the status quo.

For OPs sake, let me explain why their idea is garbage

For the """pros"""
>easing import restrictions
So we could get new russian stuff. For most people, this is a nonissue.
>no more assault weapons laws and stamps
The AWB has already sunset. If youre talking about dismantling the NFA, it only really governs suppressors, SBRs, and FA. And for places like NY and CA, they would impose their own shit anyway on a local level.
>decreased waiting period
First off, fuck your "decreased". Second, only cuck states have waiting periods and im not fucking sticking my neck out for those places
>allows local restrictions anyway
Fuck you
>shorter process for a statistically more unstable group, fees waived
Nice

Cons
>doctor can tell me what i can and cant own
What, like a psych eval? Every X years? Completely unreasonable, similar to "may issue" jurisdictions
>revoking right to bear arms for violent offenders
We already have that, how is that compromise?


TL;DR
You clearly dont know what we already have or what people want, and you dont understand that the libs will never compromise. 2/10 for trying, would not vote

>nobody should be able to take away your guns
I'm not disputing that. But like I said, a gun grabber has the exact. same. voting power as you do. This way, we'd get more, and the only people would have to sacrifice would be those that wanted full auto. And yes, I think it's in everyone's best interests to ensure, once every year or so, that someone with an M60 isn't addicted to meth.

Again, I'm being pragmatic. I'm talking about THIS reality we live in, not a hypothetical reality where the only law about firearms is that there are no laws about firearms. 330 million people here, compromise is essential.


>made it VERY clear they're not interested in compromise
See

It seems to me that what you don't comprehend about law is precedent. If you give the government the precedent of restricting firearms based on licenses and state-provided tests, they have every legal authority to make those licenses harder to acquire and those tests harder to pass. Remember, the government of a representative democracy is constantly in flux. A system will never stay the same for long.
The reason you don't restrict speech to say, silence communists, is because when people that like communists more than libertarians get in, they can use your speech restricting system to silence the libertarians.
So, if lay the groundwork for restricting arms, future governments will undoubtedly use that groundwork to further arms restriction. That's what happened with the NFA, and we're approaching nearly one hundred years of trying to get our gun rights back, and we're only starting to pick up steam now. There's no guarantee we can even keep the ball rolling.

So basically we would potentially gain NFA guns (i noticed that explosives were not meantioned), but we would not only lose the de facto right to bear arms via your license, but we would set the precedent for more restrictions.

Why would a gun advocate ever think that's a reasonable compromise? FA isnt some holy grail that we're willing to give up everything for

>I don't understand precedent
>I don't understand that my plan, if implemented in real life, would not be a "fair trade" but will result in gun owners getting nothing and banners getting everything

Fuck off. The average high school debate club has a better grasp of history.

>Just to play Devil's advocate... look at the first three replies to this thread and tell me how concerned with compromise all of you are.
Do you know why that is? It's because we "compromised" and have given up so much while getting absolutely nothing in return, we're sick of "compromising" since there is absolutely no point or gain for us.

>Again, I'm being pragmatic. I'm talking about THIS reality we live in, not a hypothetical reality where the only law about firearms is that there are no laws about firearms. 330 million people here, compromise is essential

the whole idea behind any of this regulatory rule is that if people don't like something they don't have to participate (i.e. secede from the union)

you seem to misunderstand that forced compliance = compromise

>Permit
Stooped reading there.

My permit is making it to adulthood without a significant criminal charge(s). Fuck off.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The reason we have so much shitty regulation nowadays is because of """(((compromises)))""" that literally just moved the ball further down the field of gun control. You can't compromise on something given by the constitution.

AW HELL WE Sup Forums NOW LADS
NIIIIIIIIIGGERKIKENIGGER NIGGER JEW

fuck off kike you have taken enough