TTAG email addy’s been pinging like a babe-detecting radar outside of Alisa Basyuk’s house. Our Armed Intelligentsia report that Jeffrey Goldberg‘s Atlantic magazine story The Case for More Guns and More Gun Control is a fair and balanced look at America’s firearms debate. Initial indications aren’t good . . .
Guns are responsible for roughly 30,000 deaths a year in America; more than half of those deaths are suicides . . .
Other [gun control] measures could be taken as well. Drum-style magazines like the kind James Holmes had that night in Aurora, which can hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition and which make continuous firing easy, have no reasonable civilian purpose, and their sale could be restricted without violating the Second Amendment rights of individual gun owners.”
And then . . .
“But these gun-control efforts, while noble, would only have a modest impact on the rate of gun violence in America. Why?
Because it’s too late . . .
There are an estimated 280 million to 300 million guns in private hands in America—many legally owned, many not. Each year, more than 4 million new guns enter the market. This level of gun saturation has occurred not because the anti-gun lobby has been consistently outflanked by its adversaries in the National Rifle Association, though it has been. The NRA is quite obviously a powerful organization, but like many effective pressure groups, it is powerful in good part because so many Americans are predisposed to agree with its basic message.
America’s level of gun ownership means that even if the Supreme Court—which ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment gives citizens the individual right to own firearms, as gun advocates have long insisted—suddenly reversed itself and ruled that the individual ownership of handguns was illegal, there would be no practical way for a democratic country to locate and seize those guns.
There’s your common sense gun control. Or lack thereof. As we’ve said here many times, culture eats strategy for lunch. Although America’s gun culture doesn’t extend to democratically controlled urban enclaves, it’s alive and well and living just about everywhere else.
From there Goldberg is off and running, giving serious consideration to the idea that arming more Americans might be a good idea. To wit: “. . . if someone is shooting at you, it is generally better to shoot back than to cower and pray.” And providing a host of excellent quotes from gun rights advocates.
Unfortunately, Goldberg’s article fails at the final furlong:
The ideology of gun-ownership absolutism doesn’t appeal to me. Unlike hard-line gun-rights advocates, I do not believe that unregulated gun ownership is a defense against the rise of totalitarianism in America, because I do not think that America is ripe for totalitarianism. (Fear of a tyrannical, gun-seizing president is the reason many gun owners oppose firearms registration.)
In the video above, Goldberg tells his audience that he supports (supported?) Israel because it’s a place where “Jews could defend themselves when they needed to defend themselves.” With what? Stones?
For the writer who understands the need for a Jewish homeland to claim that America is somehow immune to the possibility of totalitarianism or, for that matter, lethal anti-semitism, is naive beyond imagination. And yet there it is.
And here’s Goldberg’s unsolicited advice to gun rights advocates.
A balanced approach to gun control in the United States would require the warring sides to agree on several contentious issues. Conservative gun-rights advocates should acknowledge that if more states had stringent universal background checks—or if a federal law put these in place—more guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable. They should also acknowledge that requiring background checks on buyers at gun shows would not represent a threat to the Constitution. “The NRA position on this is a fiction,” says Dan Gross, the head of the Brady Campaign. “Universal background checks are not an infringement on our Second Amendment rights. This is black-helicopter stuff.” Gross believes that closing the gun-show loophole would be both extremely effective and a politically moderate and achievable goal. The gun lobby must also agree that concealed-carry permits should be granted only to people who pass rigorous criminal checks, as well as thorough training-and-safety courses.
Background checks are to crime prevention what dildos are to birth control. Firearms training and safety courses are feel-good theater for gun shy and anti-gun Americans and an unnecessary—yes I said unnecessary—impediment to a fundamental, Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Would Goldberg agree to similar limitations to his First Amendment protected right to free speech? Like fellow Atlantic author Adam Winkler’s take on gun control, Goldberg’s “Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?” message is dangerous disinformation.
But still . . . Goldberg’s piece in The Atlantic represents a new pragmatism towards guns amongst left-leaning intellectuals. Despite Goldberg’s lack of understanding of and respect for the United States Constitution, we’re going to give him props for helping move the needle for the fence-straddling liberals who read his screed.
Can’t wait for Dan Baum’s new book . . .
“Shall not be infringed.” Seems simple enough. Why isn’t it?
Now you know they have a more modern(to their liking) dictionary than us “gun nuts”, and having such they are more “in touch” with what Modern Society really needs to survive!!!
End of Sarcastic Rant!!
Honestly people like him may help our cause some but in the long run he would more than likely fall on their side of the fence with just a slight push!
Because the Supreme Court gets the final say as to its meaning. See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (5 U.S) 137, 2 LEd 60 (1803).
Another great article. I personally have no problem with universal background checks. I don’t imagine that there would be a statistically significant change in the number of criminals who purchased guns, but I do know it would make one more hurdle to their acquisition of guns.
I personally have no issue with private gun sales going through the process. Meet at the FFL dealer, he does that paperwork and you’re done. My local FFL guy charges $10.
But, when the universal background checks fail to solve all of the worlds problems what do they come after next.
“I don’t imagine that there would be a statistically significant change in the number of criminals who purchased guns…”
And therefore the expense cannot be justified. Shall we next require background checks when purchasing a cable internet connection, or upon entering seminary? A right is a right, no matter how that makes you feel.
my local ffl charges $50. The only guy in DC (not sure if he is even still in business) charged something like $200. If you live in a rural part of the country there might not be an FFL for hundreds of miles. Poll taxes are unconstitutional.
I appreciate the fact that you didn’t eviscerate him for daring to disagree (or simply being undecided) on some things. He can be wrong (or we can, from the anti-point of view) without either of us needing to question the other side’s parentage. This is how the needle moves, one little bit at a time.
“because I do not think that America is ripe for totalitarianism.”
What ****ing country does he live in? Clearly not the America I’m living in where people will cry, wail, gnash their teeth, and roll around on the ground like the “holy spirit” inhabited them just because they see Obama at a rally. The country where truth is buried under lies constantly repeated by a mainstream press that’s in the tank for the government. The country that turns a blind eye to the incarceration and ruined lives of millions of people who did nothing wrong but possess a plant when it was unfashionable to do so. The country that has major police agencies (like the NYPD) using predator drones to monitor their populace. The country where cops demand that cell phone providers keep everyone’s text messages for two years so they can snoop through them. The country that ignores the continuous terror bombing of innocent people in Pakistan and lets the President get away with classifying every military age male (16-60) as “militants” who had it coming, even if they were just EMTs responding to the aftermath. The country whose courts wiped their *** with the constitution years ago and broadened the original scope and meaning of the “commerce clause” to mean that Congress can do just about whatever they **** they want without having to pass constitutional amendments. The country where legitimately criticizing police and the military gets you stares and glares from the average Joe. Where people believe “just following orders” is a legitimate defense. After all, they’re just doing their jobs! The country where people tune the hell out and care more about sports than what’s going on with their own government. The country where it’s either Team Blue, Team Red, or **** You and both are fundamentally so similar that it’s nearly a waste of time to vote. The country where all our rights have turned into privileges. I could go on but my fingers are getting tired.
Yeah, America isn’t ripe for totalitarianism. Whatever. Keep on thinking that. Just because it’s wearing a smiley face doesn’t mean it isn’t totalitarianism, bub.
You kind of lost me after the cult of personalty bit.
Are you saying that we were ripe for totalitarianism in 1945 because we “classified” every German and Japanese citizen from the age of 0-100+ a supporter of Hitler and Hirohito and bombed the crap out of them?
Are police in helicopters libertarians while police flying drones the Stasi?
Is it constitutionally ok with you to Subpoena a letter but totalitarian to do the same thing with a text message or E-mail.
So much for your incoherent rant.
“Are you saying that we were ripe for totalitarianism in 1945 because we “classified” every German and Japanese citizen from the age of 0-100+ a supporter of Hitler and Hirohito…”
No, he’s referring to the fact that sometime within the last couple years (sorry, don’t have citations right now) the definition of enemy combatant/militant/etc. was changed to include all males between certain ages (16-60 sounds close enough) in a given area. That way, when the bombs went off and people died, they were classified as combatants, not as collateral damage, regardless of what they were doing (or had been doing recently) when they died.
Pretty much everybody in Pakistan’s NW Terrirories is Taliban or a Taliban sympathizer. That is socio-cultural fact not an assumption so they pretty much fit into the German/Japanese civilian-like category.
And Tommy, if that’s what you meant why didn’t you say it instead of nonsense about text messages and drones?
By the way I was in the building on 9-11 (New Forsman Conference room off the 8th corridor on the mezzanine level) so I’m pretty much up to speed on that event.
And one more thing, you seem to believe in the Dixie Chicks clause of the First Amendment — If somebody doesn’t like your exercise of free speech they should just shutup and not respond.
Maybe you’ve asleep tdniiva for the last thirty years, or since 9/11 or maybe just the last couple of months; no knock warrants? The breaking down of doors in the middle of the night by black ski masked men carrying full auto weapons without actually showing a warrant to the home owner and if they pick the wrong house and you are killed defending from what you belive to be home invaders, all the police will say “oops, better luck next time”.
Asset forfeiture? Where they can seize all that you own on simply the suspicion you might have gained them by criminal means and then you have to go court to prove your innocence
The NDAA where if you as an American citizen are classified as an enemy combatant by some government .official you might have pissed off, are denied habeous corpus and can be held indefinitely without the right of trial?
General traffic stops for “safety checks”? The TSA now going to bus and train stations to do random people checks,?
Looks to me what would be described as a totalitarian police state.
It’s not total yet but they’re working on it.
“Pretty much everybody in Pakistan’s NW Terrirories is Taliban or a Taliban sympathizer. That is socio-cultural fact not an assumption so they pretty much fit into the German/Japanese civilian-like category.”
tdiinva, you lie.
“FATA Residents Reject Al-Qaeda and the Taliban
Opposition to American policies in the region does not mean, however, that the people of FATA embrace either Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. More than three-quarters of FATA residents oppose the presence inside their region of Al-Qaeda and over two-thirds the Pakistan Taliban (60 percent oppose the Afghan Taliban led by Mullah Omar).
Indeed, if Al-Qaeda or the Pakistani Taliban were on the ballot in an election, less than one percent of FATA residents said they would vote for either group.”
I agree, it is a police state, just not a total one; but the gears are in place, anyone who has been in those gears up to now, KNOW the totalitarian part is alive and well.
But the gears are there and if we get into a major war or there is an economic upset that creates alot of societal upset, all of us will feel the bite of those gears. Total or totalitarian will be real for all of us.
Uh huh. You do know that the Pakistani Taliban is attempting to overthrow the Central Government right and create a sharia based state? And you also know that both the Pakistani Taliban and the Afghan Taliban are creatures of key elements in the Pakistani intelligence services (ISI) right?
Also you know that George Soros funds the New America foundation don’t you? Now that’s a reliable source.
BTW what nonsense about texts and drones? Instead of refuting anything I’ve said you either move the goalposts or attack the source.
Educate yourself. Or don’t. But I’m done here and don’t care to deal with the intellectually dishonest.
Heah sport, you are the one who brought up drones and texts, not me. You are too dense to realize I gave you a lesson on presentation. Your first attempt at making your point was quite lame. You did ok on the second one. Here is some advice for the future. Lay out your case with specific facts not emotions.
“Lay out your case with specific facts not emotions.”
he already has laid out specific facts and you seem to be too lazy to read them.
not his problem.
Actually, Franklin Roosevelt was our answer to the other totalitarians. FDR ruled with a very authoritarian hand, and had enough media on his side to get reelected three times.
We lost more freedoms under FDR than under any other president, except maybe Wilson.
We only regained some of it after the war because he was dead, and Truman had some morals.
Thanks. You know, what you said is exactly what I have been thinking about FDR lately as we have talked about the advent of Progressivism and the slide towards totalitarianism in the US here on TTAG. I thought I was going off the proverbial deep end. My Parents thought FDR was beyond reproach-being Great Depression/WWII era kids and young people. It’s good to hear someone else say the same things I have been suspecting, while doubting myself.
So, Thanks many times over DW!
Sounds more like “soft control” to me. Apply some force to the fringes of society and rely on shaming/trendiness to keep the middle in line. Coercion meets persuasion meets high school. Worry less about the government and more about the “free” press which defends it. The scariest part about the beast is that doesn’t have a head or a heart.
Now I’m going to wax conspiratorial and suggest that the next serious gun control push will come through Robama-care in 2017. Firearms are a “risk” which will raise insurance costs. John Q. Public might love his Glock but he loves his pocketbook more.
I think the hoplosphere likes to get ginned up over overt restrictions like the AWB or lead bans. Negligent kings are better than the “benevolent” medical/therapeutic state.
you forgot the 2012 NDAA 😉 (jk, your point was abundantly clear)
In agreement with other commenters, I think it’s important to give credit where credit is due: Goldberg gets a lot right. Even if we continue to disagree on some of the specifics, our short term goal should be to normalize 1) gun ownership and 2) taking personal responsibility for your own self-defense. Goldberg is enormously on point with many statements that support those goals.
Once the culture is so far over to acceptance and normalcy of gun ownership, even in urban centers, we’ll be at a point where the argument is over the reasonableness of the NFA and whether those who still don’t use silencers on their imported SBR’s are ignorant or rude.
Take a liberal shooting today (and make sure they have fun, so leave the large calibers at home). Only 40% of self-described Democrats own a gun (55% of self-described Republicans). Let’s get both numbers up. We’ve won some recent battles, and I think it’s great that things are headed in our direction, but we need to keep the cultural momentum building in order to comprehensively win the larger struggle here.
So why doesn’t this guy just give up. Like he said… we are not just going to give up our guns or magazines.
Gun restrictions only effect new gun buyers. That is not fair and it divides society into two classes… one armed and one unarmed. Given enough time, the armed class will enslave unarmed class.
I’m like a lot of other posters here, tired of “compromising”. They saddle us with new laws (we give) and get nothing in return (they take). Last time I checked, compromise means both sides give some and neither walks away happy. No more, you (the anti’s) can’t have it.
I’m a little surprised that this story hasn’t brought this point up yet.
Goldberg says that because there are millions of guns in private hands, it’s too late to disarm Americans. He’s wrong. Sure, it’s too late to disarm Americans, but it has been since December 15, 1791.
I’m not agreeing to s#!%, just as I will never give up what I own, gun ownership for me is an issue of Freedom, in any “compromise” it is always the “Gun Owner” who looses.
On another note I see there is another Ross posting…….. so rather than do “the other Ross”……….
Changed my newer posts in this thread to Ross B, which I’ll do from now on.
“I do not believe that unregulated gun ownership is a defense against the rise of totalitarianism in America”
“I do not think that America is ripe for totalitarianism”
JG needs to study history. Hitler rose to power in one short political generation.
If I’m ever going to be forcibly placed into a re-education center, an extermination camp, be mandated by government to daily swallow mood controlling happy-eunuch drugs, or used as a work laborer at the point of a government thug threatening me with a gun then I’d prefer to go out fighting as a free rebel.
America has long been on the political road to losing our liberties and civilian control over our government. Realistically, it is already essentially gone. People are mostly pretending to officially play by the rules. The trend is for America to evolve into a state that is a mix of fascism/corporatism, some marxism, some group rights, little to no individual rights, outright two sexual classes with males being the underclass with few rights.
What about taking advantage of some possible crisis for government to declare totalitarianism in a few short steps?
– Climate change getting worse and worse (which could result in everything from plagues to food shortages to economic collapse)
– Worldwide or domestic plague/pandemic
– Food shortages
– Currency collapse or implosion with a mix of hyper-inflation and hyper-deflation
– Economic collapse (related to above) putting really (large!) numbers out of work and with the resulting struggle for survival
– Social unrest and violence between people from different groups on a large scale
– Terrorist or other external based attacks (whether secretly allowed by our government to occur or not)
Personally, I think Obama and his side would be happy to see the whole middle class (whats left of it) collapse and join the poor classes in being unemployed. I think Obama and his side would be happy to see people from all races, ethnic groups, and religions all in a huge painful mess together. I think in Obama’s mind it would be good for a future America in his quest to destroy the concept of nationalism, individualism, and even group identity based on race, ethnic group, culture etc. Then, Obama and his social engineers can mold people to be the sheeple of the state they want us to be. Just as every Marxist and Fascist leader views the people.
Guns might not keep a totalitarian state from evolving yet not to have guns in modern America probably will guarantee such a state to arise.
Zombies. You forgot about zombies. 😉
My late ex father in law used to always say that our current form of government only wants 2 classes…Filthy fricking rich and dirt fricking poor. That way they can control the underprivileged/poor/unworthy by their own methods whatever they may be.
The British Blue Blood Monarchy style… We the wealthy elite perfect will tell you what you need and don’t need or deserve because we are wealthy and therefore inherently so much smarter than you poor uneducated unwashed commoners!!!
that is very true.
the current elites that control our paradigm dont want a middle class. a healthy, educated, prosperous people are hard to control.
Culture is the key. We have to learn from others. Whether we agree with them or not. What has been successful? Take the gay community. They took advantage of every opportunity to insert gay issues in news, plays, movies, songs, you name it. A constant drum beat. We need to do the same. Take no prisoners. Make a big deal about EVERY comment or proposal. Scream bloody murder. Make folks like Costas and Whitlock’s life miserable. Make an example of him. Get him fired. Make him a pariah. Then move on to the next idiot. Or the next proposal. Play the race card, age card, disability card or gay card on them. Make them eat their own crap. If the 2A community gives one inch it will take a decade to make up for it. Never accept half way. Show no quarter in this fight.
Do you know how to win a culture war? Keep making progress. Don’t try to reach the finish line (let’s say: repeal of the NFA) in one leap.
The gay community is winning the culture war as you correctly said: by keeping the pressure on. But the pressure has been on for some time and only this past month did statewide referendums actually approve gay marriage.
We need to be thinking long-term and also keeping the pressure on, but this doesn’t mean “no compromise” on laws, on court cases, on articles in liberal magazines. If we replace draconian anti-gun laws in Chicago with better but still not-good-enough laws, have we won? No, but it can be a part of winning the much more important cultural struggle. There’s always next year to replace the not-good-enough laws with even better ones.
Everyone reading this: keep your eye on the long-term goals. We want gun ownership to be normal everywhere and for there to be little mystery or fear of firearms for anyone except criminals. City dwellers, Obama voters, petite women, overmuscled men, everyone should assume that their neighbor is armed, just like them.
“It is, of course, possible to distract a heavily armed psychotic on a suicide mission by throwing an iPod at him, or a pencil. But it is more likely that the psychotic would respond by shooting the pencil thrower.”
This is so darkly amusing.
I’m for training but I’m not for mandatory training for carry permits. I just don’t think it is necessary. I think if common sense is not good enough they could just give you a gun safety pamphlet which includes “make sure you know your weapon’s functions and how to employ it” then you’ve got it covered.
What I think would be cool if every state did was to simply make available information on ELECTIVE gun training when you get your forms. Like when you applied for your permit you could get a list of all of the certified instructors in your area. Instructors could choose to be on the list or not. New permit holders who have no idea where to start would have a place to start. I think this would be helpful in getting traditionally non-gun people who want a gun but may not fit in with stereotypical gun culture into the gun-owner camp.
Don, I think that is an excellent suggestion.
Here when we want a cc license we have to take a course that teaches you basic firearms handling(always good) and during the class you have to live fire qualify with your chosen firearm(also good), I believe to pass the requirement for live fire was 45 out 50 rounds in the 8″ black circles called out by the RO!!
The classroom portion deals with local and state laws, basics of firearms control and all 3 of the local PD Officers who teach the class have all been involved in numerous shootings so you get a really honest view of all that is involved with the before and after of a DGU.
Although I have been around firearms since I was 5yrs old(45yrs now) I still learned some new and very useful info in the class.
These types of class/training requirements I don’t have a problem with because of the info gathered and learned. Wish it had been a little cheaper but like we always said “good ain’t always cheap and cheap ain’t always good”!!
Poll taxes were once believed to be a reasonable measure for preventing the “wrong” sort of people from voting.
I do understand that and I don’t like the fact we had to pay for the class and then pay for the permit itself. It is our constitutional right to keep and bear but at the same time I do realize that if I carry illegally to protect my family that I may one day,right or wrong, justified or not, end up in prison for something that I could have paid a couple hundred bucks for and just maybe not have ended up in the pen or broke from lawyer fee’s and then still in prison.
Although poll taxes were enacted to keep their version of “undesirables” from voting it eventually went the way of the DoDo Bird, and maybe one day, if it gets to where we don’t have to “pay a poll/use” tax to have a ccw permit, our future generations will have a safer and more gun friendly country to live and raise their families in!!
It seems we do see this issue in the same light. I believe that everyone should get training. I just can’t reconcile a “requirement” for training. Seems too much like the aforementioned poll tax.
Maybe the anti-gun-violence groups could foot the bill so that free training was available to new permit people instead of using the money for gun buybacks. That would be an effective way to reduce accidental gun violence.
Now that is a good idea!! It would cure two problems at one time,and just think of the news headlines!!
Ted Brokaw here: tonight’s headline: “Anti gun politicians and anti gun civilians alike are spontaneously exploding all over the US and in the UN building after being informed that all gun buy backs have been outlawed and that all proceeds from previous buy backs must be alloted to each individual States Concealed Carry Fund immediately”!!! Film at 11:00!!!
I don’t understand why so many people keep claiming this is “balanced”. Just because he says a couple of positive (or at least, non-negative) things about guns doesn’t change the fact that 90% of his article is horribly anti-gun.
Yeah! What you said is right on the money!
Pretty amazing to me that you read the same article I did and found it to be 90% hostile to RKBA. I think it’s incredibly exciting that articles like this are being written. It’s part of a breakthrough of making gun ownership normal, especially among urban liberals. If we can make the idea of gun ownership non-threatening to urban liberals, we have won. Not just for a few years, but for future generations. To me, that’s the real goal that we should be pursuing, and articles like this are making it happen.
Well, I for one say, “To hell with their compromises”.
There is NO gunshow loophole. What liberals complain about, is private sales of guns. My guns are my property. Just like I can sell a car online or out of my driveway, then by God, I can sell my guns, without the governments blessing!
I don’t think we compromise at all. Period. The left always talks about crossing the Isle and working together. But, it’s always those on the right, who are being “unreasonable’ and have to cave.
Nope, I am not playing. You can’t have a concession of the number of rounds I can have in my magazine. The 2nd amendment means what it says and says what it means. “Shall NOT be infringed”. It’ doesn’t have a subsection at says, “if you complete the required training and course of fire and submit to government restrictions and approval.” Shall not be infringed.
There is NO compromise. Not on my rights!
I own a lot of stuff, as well as a pistol. Nobody thinks I could be a crescent wrench killer, or, a Buick menace, (at my age, even the back seat is safe), or thinks I would break into their house and beat them to death with a 5# computer. Not real sure some of my neighbors would not tho. Seriously, a crime is a crime, a pistol is a tool. Don’t make firearms illegal, make using them in an illegal manner……..illegal.
I don’t care about the article… I gotta get my ass to Isreal.
Ok, so he says:
Conservative gun-rights advocates should acknowledge that if more states had stringent universal background checks—or if a federal law put these in place—more guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable.
That sounds all well and good, but then you get whacks like in the Aurora or Giffords situations who went through that very process (I could be wrong, but IIRC, they both got their gats legally at gun stores, meaning they had BG checks run). All of a sudden, that same background check is not enough. We need to “do more.” The hypocrisy and ignorance of the anti crowd never fails to amaze me.
But is he right? Sure, those notable cases (and the VT killer) made it through the check system. But would some other criminals find it harder to get a gun if all PPT’s had the same kind of felon/mentally unstable check? If so, then he’s not being ignorant or hypocritical, and you should relax off your high horse.
I live in Washington (state) and I won’t sell a firearm to someone unless they have a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) that matches up with their driver’s license. This is a common requirement among gun owners on PNW gun forums. I choose to do this because they have to have gone through a background check to get that license and I’m sure that they are not an ex-felon or previously classified as mentally unstable.
I’m not arguing for licensing, but there is an argument that there is a compelling state interest to limit firearm ownership to (shall-issue) licensed individuals, in which case, even a license to exercise our 2nd amendment rights wouldn’t contradict Heller. Of course, we need a test case to go through the courts before the issue of compelling state interest would be answered, so…
What about people who can pass the NICS background checks but are not interested in a concealed license?
I know a few people who own firearms legally(long guns and pistols) but they have no real interest in a ccw license. My fiancée and her dad both legally own long guns and pistols per state and federal law but neither is interested in a ccw license.
Arkansas is a shall issue state and our local gun shop runs the NICS check as soon as you commit to purchasing a weapon. So while a lot of people here have ccw license’s some don’t care to but still hunt, shoot skeet, etc.
Just a question as to what kind of limits there would be if a law stated ccw holders only allowed to purchase firearms. Would there be a reasonable exception for non licensee who hunts,etc.
The problem is that the antis constantly want to add more laws or “close loopholes” instead of looking at how and why the current laws are failing. They are not interested in fixing anything, unless it’s the problem of people owning guns – they’d love to fix that. There’s also the niggling little detail that any “honest conversation” they call for can only be successful if the pro gun side capitualtes. I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest that doing a BG check on every sale, including PPT has any net effect on “gun violence.” Here in CA, that’s been the law for years, but somehow the bad guys all have guns. Still. The only way to solve any problem is to correctly identify the problem. When it comes to criminal use of a gun, though, it’s always the gun that is blamed, not the person behind it.