Did kulka's posts get removed? I just wanted to see the ratings on them.
This part isn't something I'm an expert on since I don't personally own any guns so it may be better to ask @Grenadiac or @AlbertWesker but to my knowledge the basic requirements are largely the same across the country and I believe that's just a basic gun safety class and background check. States that allow concealed carry have stricter requirements for obtaining a CC license if I recall correctly. It also depends on the exact type of gun. Shotguns and non-automatic rifles tend to have looser restrictions than handguns which have looser restrictions than automatics.
To my knowledge, in a lot of states you don't actually need a license for shotguns and hunting rifles due to the fact they're such a common tool out in the rural areas. So a lot of farmers have shotguns for protecting their cattle and such as well as the aforementioned hunters.
As for this bit, I don't necessarily disagree with you at all there. In my personal experience though, in the rural areas where gun ownership is most common gun safety is also commonly taught to kids by their parents.
Most places don't have a class or anything of the sort you need to buy again.
You walk into the store with your ID (some states will ask for two forms), fill out an ATF form (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download), and the FFL runs a NICS check.
That's it, for most places. Generally, you only need a course to Conceal Carry, and there are decent number of places where they're no longer required or have never been.
Of the ~11,000 firearm homicides in the US, the vast majority are done with handguns. If someone believes there's a problem, it's easy to see it doesn't lie in long guns.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/110538/92d1ae50-a4cd-4eb6-a264-51a7d2bc3e36/atlas_Hk7SMouPG@2x.png
Handguns have more restrictions because they're far more easy to hide and thus significantly more commonly used for crimes. For the concealed-carry thing, it actually feeds into that previous bit a little. Concealed carry also isn't legal in quite a few states but in the ones it is legal in, you have to adhere to more criteria to get your license for it.
That's pretty reasonable. A lot of pro-gun people would actually be in general agreement with you on restrictions being changed up somewhat. Some things like a lot of the weapons bans that have been enacted were basically feel-good measures that never actually addressed any of the functional issues with obtaining guns.
"Alien" just refers to anyone in the US who isn't a citizen basically. And the purpose of some of those questions is so that if you're found to be lying on them or doing something illegal related to them you can't easily say you misspoke or anything because they're quite clear. I think the race and ethnicity stuff is often used for information regarding a person's physical appearance when cops look up info on a gun's owner.
Alien isn't considered a racist term by anyone, really, as far as I'm aware.. I don't know why it is cataloged according to hispanic/non-hispanic, but a tons of forms in hospitals/gov't forms/etc. differentiate between the two. I never really thought about it too hard, but I googled the question and it seems to be mostly for what I figured it would be, census type stuff and statistics, if the information is ever computerized. I wouldn't get hung up on it actually playing a factor in the background check, I'm positive it doesn't.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about/qbyqfact/2016/Hispanic.pdf
You will be denied if you answer yes to any of the questions about criminal history, etc. If NICS works as intended, it will catch you if you lie, as far as I'm aware. I don't run them, though, @Unclejimmema might have more information on that. He is an Arms Dealer Extraordinaire.
Like snek said, the only federal requirement is that you are over 18 for long guns/over 21 for handguns & pass a background check (no felonies/no warrants/not considered a danger to oneself). Some states have more stringent rules. The dealer also isn't allowed to sell you a gun if you "look
I'm not opposed to requiring a safety class for the first purchase in principle but in practice I would be opposed to it for these reasons:
1) It would be expensive. You're looking at probably $90-100 for the class once it becomes mandatory. There is no way in hell the gov would pay for this. That is not an insignificant sum added on to the price of your purchase.
2) It would result in the tracking of gun purchases. Once you've taken this class, something has to signify that you've done it, which means a list of gun owners exists somewhere, and lawmakers love to abuse those as seen in New York.
At current there is no database of who owns what and background transfer records are only kept for the purpose of tracking guns used in crimes. If they wanted to make a registry database out of it it would take literally years to organize and digitize that information.
On the other hand tracking classes like this creates a database with a unique ID number for every person who's ever taken the class and it suddenly becomes very easy, almost automatic, to associate new purchases with their database entry. Then your state decides to ban guns with barrel shrouds and before you know it the cops are at your door demanding you turn it over.
Most NICS checks are run on computers these days, hell I only call when I've got someone with a UPIN. Generally when there's a delay it can be due to a common name, things such as high teir background checks (military stuff), and crimes. So if you had a crime say for theft and tried to buy a gun, and your state (like many do) is slow to notify the federal government on its details, then the gov has to go and get that information themselves which takes time.
The problem with the NICS system/our current background check system isn't due to a lack of laws or substandard checking standards. Its because the states don't fully cooperate with the federal government, people mess things up, and the people tasks with managing these checks are generally undertrained and underfunded.
In what ways do you guys think the GOP could bounce back from the taint Trump has put on them and their ideologies?
The most direct way which would net them the most return would be to simply purge the party of bad actors, liars, thieves, racists, scoundrels, and call for a 'return to ideals'. Dropping the animus with Democrats would also help them with Independent voters; I say this as an independent voter who hasn't been able to even consider voting Republican in the last 10 years due to how things are being run.
I'm far too biased against the Republican party to deliver accurate or meaningful analysis, but I'd submit that Trump is less a taint than he is the full embodiment of Republican politics. He isn't an aberration, he is the purpose-made conclusion to years of political hysteria. His platform is standard Republican fare with the dial turned to 11 on certain parts, namely immigration. His approval rating amongst Republicans currently sits at 88%.
I'm going to be up front here, and state that I am pretty left leaning, and as such, you may take that into account with my opinion.
Data shows that the Republican Party has become far more extreme in the past few decades, at a rate significantly faster than Democrats. This becomes even more obvious when you view American politics from a global perspective, where it's rather infamous that most establishment Democrats are more comparable to the Conservative parties of many European political systems. I personally believe that we may finally start seeing a fundamental shift towards the left for American politics in general. This can be seen in general with how more mainstream leftist policies have become more visible and accepted as a alternative to the rather moderate Neoliberal policies traditionally held by both Republicans and Democrats since Reagan and Clinton. This can be observed in the growth and increasing acceptance of Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Socialists of America, and just the dreaded "S word" in general. This shift could possibly be as dramatic for the future of the American political landscape as the Southern Strategy was for its time. Whether this would actually be through a "collapse," "rebranding," or "migration" of the Republican Party is definitely up for debate, but arguably, the Republican party isn't actually super necessary in American politics. If you are economically conservative and even socially conservative, there's still a place in the current Democratic party for you. Let's not forget that Democrats even in today's polarized Congress can still hold pretty moderate views. There are Democrats (like Sanders, infamously) who are not super anti-gun. There are Democrats who infamously only ten years ago were opposed to progressive social change such as gay marriage and supporting trans people. Personally, I think the Republican party brand is too strong to just end for the foreseeable future, but it's not completely crazy that maybe we could see Democrats becoming the new Center-Right party with an opposing party like the DSA (maybe as an analogue for something like the Labour Party) as a home for more Left wing policies. Crazier things have happened in our own history.
Either way, political polarization isn't permanent, so we may eventually see the Republicans are shifting leftward towards more moderate policies, whether through something dramatic as my above fiction, or maybe something as boring as the eventual inexorable Demographic realities causing the Republicans to lose popularity until they create more moderate policies that will attract an increasingly more diverse and liberal generation of voters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.