Oddly enough it works like this for silencers to my understanding. And concealed carry to an extent.
But yeah people would riot without their guns
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
Oddly enough it works like this for silencers to my understanding. And concealed carry to an extent.
But yeah people would riot without their guns
And people think sound suppressors are only for assassins. What if I just want to do some target shooting without blowing out my ear drums? It's a valid reasoning.
They really should call them dampeners, because you still need hearing protection while using a silencer
Ear protection.

Not nearly as cool, unfortunately
Home defense without blowing my ears on the stairs, and my poor kitties don't like vacuums you think they're trying to hear that? In parts of FR and UK they're required safety equipment!
Seems like its like this in most States. I know waiting periods are pretty common (pay today, but don't get possession or the firearm for 1-4 weeks).
It also seems like mail order of complete guns directly to a residential address is pretty locked down (I know 80% guns and such have loop holes). Its my understanding that you've got to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer, then you can collect it there where they're can do any requisite ID / document checks. Bet this varies state by state though, as well as the bar for constituting a "licensed gun dealer".
Bet this varies state by state though, as well as the bar for constituting a "licensed gun dealer".
Nah, that's all federal as fuck.
Conservatives and the right don't care if they're being hypocritical or ignoring how this applies to something they do like. They want the SAVE act because it will benefit them or their side, specifically, not because it's "a good law for everyone" and they don't want a gun version of it because it will restrict them, specifically. they'd probably be fine with a gun version that only restricts Democrats, "the left", trans people, people of color, and any other "outsider".
We need to stop pushing the narrative that guns are only for Republicans. The second amendment is for everyone, and everyone should be fighting to protect it.
While I agree, you might be missing the value here. This poster is exceptionally good agitprop to dunk on a short sighted chud uncle or father. Possibly strong enough to make them think for at least a few seconds about their stupid and dangerous opinions.
Fair enough, though going after the 2nd isn't going to help us find common ground and that's what we need if we're ever going to unite and fight the real enemy. It's a huge wedge issue and part of the reason some people's entire political thought process is "own the libs".
As a Democrat and a gun owner/lover I fully agree.
I am always perplexed at how many of my fellow Dems and Progressives will tout the issues with big gov or totalitarian govs and then also think that there should be sweeping restrictions on guns.
Minority communities LOVE guns too.
I would not support this. While I support gun control, the SAVE act is designed to discriminate against women. I don't want to grab women by the pistol.
Forgive my ignorance but I'm not well versed on this and don't quite get it. How exactly does it discriminate against women?
Because women's names change with marriage, and will no longer match their original documents. As written, the act would discriminate against anyone who has had a name change, but the vast majority of those are married women.
In addition to what erin said, I also want to point out that changing your name does not automatically change your name in the vital records. You have to do that yourself and it's not that intuitive, plus it costs additional money on top of the other name change costs.
Being trans, I have experienced that myself and due to wording on the court order and from what the judge told to me, I incorrectly believed my birth record would automatically get updated. According to the vital record support person I talked to, that's actually a really common mistake and happens all the time.
I'm sure there are many people with outdated records simply because they too incorrectly believed that it would be an automatic thing. For some it's probably even intentional if they feel their married name doesn't belong on their birth record.
Still not sure why someone doesnt just propose this. Exact bill, change the topic.
Tell me you've never actually bought a gun without telling me you've never bought a gun.
This ALL DAY. Even the states with the loosest laws have about that many conditions.
Also, not even a part of that act, but just buy virtue of an executive order, all states must register all gun owners and share that registry to a central federal body who will use knowingly outdated and massively incorrect data (and probably politically motivated bullshit as well) to automatically remove people from the registration without notification and make exercising gun ownership a felony if you're not on that registry. And any state that doesn't submit to this will have all of their citizen's ability to use federal services curtailed, and likely more punishments later like restricting federal dollars they are owed.
Americans are a funny breed of chimps. They wax poetic about the 2nd amendment and how they need it to protect themselves from a tyrannical government when a guy with mental health issues goes in and shoots up a school murdering innocent children and teachers.
But when they actually need to put that line item into action, they’re swinging deep into the forests away from any type of conflict.
Trump has proven that the American constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on and has the resale value of a roll of toilet paper.
Enjoy fascism American. You’ve voted for this shit, twice.
You’ve voted for this shit, twice.
The bigger problem is that too many people didn't vote at all in 16/24, leading to this. So many citizens will aggressively refuse to take any responsibility for the orange turd despite not doing the bare minimum to try to stop it.
I've gotten to the point where nonvoters opinions are worthless to me. If you can't express your opinion when it counts, I don't care about it for the other 3.999 years. Clearly it doesn't matter to you, why should it matter to me?
This is not a great analogy, blue states do sometimes pass legislation that rhymes with these types of identity-based threats to gun rights. It is sometimes prohibitively difficult to get a CHL in certain states when your chosen name doesn't match your legal name. A few years ago Oregon almost passed an act by citizen referendum that would have had police precincts be responsible for verifying that identities matched licenses, with desk cops screening people's psych histories ("Uh, their license says Samuel, male but the document says Samantha, female? Oh and what's this, they're on several medications including a mood stabilizer? Denied.'). I'm glad that OP's poster isn't pitching their hypothetical analogy as a positive, but I want to be clear for the people playing team sports with their politics that identity-based rights abuses are all bad.
But yes, that Oregon referendum did get modified to remove the potentially abusive parts. And yes, it was because Republicans and libertarian types semi-successfully challenged it in court.
Goes to the local vote show and proceeds to buy votes without any oversight.
If the government makes a clerical mistake and removes your eligibility, it's up to YOU to prove you're entitled to exercise your constitutional rights again.
I can't see any situation that the government could "accidentally" make mistakes with certain groups of peoples... The US government has never ever shown discrimination towards certain groups of people... Never once, nu uh
Much of these are already laws (or close to it.)
Your drivers license isn't enough, you also need a NICs check.
You do have to appear in person, though "original citizenship docs" isn't a requirement, naturalized citizens can legally buy guns.
If your name on the Form 4473 (or Form 1, Form 4, etc) isn't an exact match to your ID, you indeed cannot buy the gun. Same with your street address actually.
You can "apply" by mail if that means "buy online," but you still have to get it shipped to an FFL and do your NICs check and present ID in person.
If you've lost your birth cert/SSN card, you do have to get those replaced at your cost (iirc you may get a few free SSN card replacements). You don't need them to buy the gun but you do for carry permits in most states that still require permits to carry.
If the government does make a clerical mistake, it is up to you to correct it. Clerical errors here are rare though, it's usually you who made an error on the forms.
There is no deadline, nor election, but you will have to resubmit, which sucks for like a Form 1 at an 8mo wait right now, that's another 8mo to wait just because you filled the form out wrong. At least as of recently it isn't $200 to submit one, but still.
Oregon requires background checks for all sales of complete firearms and lower receivers with most of these stipulations
Those are not currently requisites for owning a gun or rifle in the US ?
Nope. Because of loopholes like private sales, someone can privately purchase a firearm from another person with basically nothing more than a look in the eye, a firm handshake and an exchange of money.
To purchase from a gun store there are rules and regulations that apply, and a very simple background check but really it doesn't take much, and with enough money most processes can be "sped up"
There are so many conditions on private sale that this answer is essentially incorrect. The vast majority of Americans live in a state that either requires that private sales go through an FFL (The federal firearm dealer license) or has other background check requirements with failure penalties on the seller severe enough that you'd want to protect yourself by going through an FFL anyway. And private sale across state lines is federally illegal, eg someone in Missouri can't do a private sale to someone from Oregon. And you cannot "speed up" a federal background check with money, the check is not run by the FFL themselves , they're just a trustworthy party that submits your paperwork to the feds. The wait time is entirely dependent on federal backlog and one's law enforcement records.
Law firm site with a list of private sale laws per state: https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html
I have an anecdote, albeit a little old. Circa 2010 I was living in the US (WI). Traded an old bar fridge I didn't need to a friend for a 30-06 rifle. It was the first firearm I owned while living there. I then went to my local police and asked if there was any kind of registration process I should go through and they said nope, we don't care. Not saying you're wrong, just one experience I had.
When I bought a shotgun from a store after that I did have to wait 3 days, I presumed at the time because I wasn't a citizen.
Your anecdote checks out, Wisconsinites are among the minority of Americans with no additional private sale requirements.
Your 3 day background check wait probably wasn't all because you're a non-citizen, that's a fairly typical wait time. Mine have all been less than 48 hours though, presumably cause on paper I'm a god damned boy scout.