If that small concession requires an amendment to the constitution it will not happen any time soon. That is my problem with focusing those kinds of things.
I'm stating that those numbers aren't compelling enough to get a constitutional amendment. Not even not close. And trying to put our hopes on a constitutional amendment to help prevent the next big school shooting is delusional to the point of negligence.
The restricted ID proposal. Nationwide. Tax credit for sanctioned gun safety and training courses. Upping the age of gun ownership (a possibility, though I think the restricted ID proposal may be enough, especially if coupled with following the advise of the professor in @Shaboid 's post).
I'm mostly good with this, though I think young people who live on their own also need a means to defend themselves (without relying on police). I would probably allow them to buy a gun for self defense if they had completed a training course, etc.
If it's found to be unconstitutional and discriminatory to require state-issued ID to vote, how will requiring the same for gun ownership not hit the same snag? Isn't that proposal subject to the same constitutionality issues you cite for other suggestions (such as raised age restriction)?
And who decides? Considering people who are Black or Hispanic are likely to be charged with crimes in situations where a white person gets a warning or school discipline, could we end up with armed white population, which was pretty much original intent of Second Amendment?
Another attempt to blame something, anything. Laura Ingraham blamed school shooting on marijuana. Which is well known to make people mellow and euphoric. Hardly emotions to motivate murder.
For the time being same people who decide now. We already have a start of database, and that could be used for the time being, and improved on in the long term. I am all for a separate court and agency to seek out these kinds of abuses and eliminate officials who engage in them. Though I think that would have to come later. The same could have authority over the no fly list if we wanted. I'd be open to discussion about this, for sure. Gun control in general is racist and negatively impacts minorities and the poor far more then whites. The constitution has been updated to the point that the 2nd amendment actually does apply equally to all "law abiding" citizens. But we certainly need updates to our judicial system as well.
State issued ID is already required to purchase guns. Otherwise how would you prove your age or do the background checks that are currently required? However, I am fully on board with making state issued ID free and available at all Post Offices (as well as current state DMV or equivalent), and making sure that there is a post office in every population center of a minimum size. 1000 people maybe?
And how do you propose to enact those changes, given that the Republican party will block each and every one of them? barfo
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...alifornia-high-school-officials-say-rcna31484 Having trouble making a joke in this thread, but there's something here... probably about doors..
I think it'll be far less likely to meet opposition to restrict only criminals, especially if it means law abiding citizens no longer need background checks. They may even be eager to support that kind of compromise. I actually think backing off on the push for gun control could be a tradeoff to expand healthcare as well... Make them vote against the "funding to find school shooters before they attack" bill? That's right up their alley... I think real progress can be made to limit these things if we get serious about it...
