Believe a lot of people wouldn't be in favor of licensing either guns or gun owners. The right to keep and bear arms is part of our Bill of Rights. That's a big deal to most Americans. We should not need a license to enjoy one of our Constitutional rights; that should be considered an infringement of that right.
I find it odd that the same people who see voting as a Constitutionally-protected right are rabidly against stipulations like voter ID, despite it being pretty standard in other countries (even in shitholes like Mexico).
Yet they seem to be all in favor of the right to keep and bear arms requiring tests, licenses, psychiatric evaluations, and various other restrictions.
I'll consider a test, psych eval, and license to keep and bear arms when people are required to have those same things in order to vote.
But we both know that won't happen, because the Democrats today wouldn't have a voter base if people had to be able to understand how the government functions and prove they're psychologically stable.
Some will say, "But you need a license to drive." Sure do, but driving a motor vehicle is not a Constitutional right, but rather a privilege, whereas owning a weapon is a Constitutional right. And you are right, firearms laws vary from state to state. I'd like to see a uniform national law, starting with Constitutional concealed and open carry of weapons. Several states have that. Most other states make it fairly easy to get a concealed weapons carry permit. CA is one of the worst. It's "may issue", and issuance is up to the individual county sheriffs. Some sheriffs issue a number of permits, after meeting qualifications. Other sheriffs make you jump through hoops to get the permit. And certain sheriffs will not issue permits at all. Doesn't affect the criminals one bit, of course.
You need a license to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. You do not need a license to purchase and own a vehicle. A five year old with enough cash in hand can purchase a vehicle. On your own property, you can have no driver's license at all and drive all you want.
So the counter to this logic is:
"I will let you know when my intent is to operate my firearm regularly in public areas, then we can discuss the licenses."
There's something to be said about banning ammunition instead of guns. Technically speaking you can still "bear arms" as in own guns but those guns can't do shit if they aren't loaded. This strategy does work in Switzerland, which has one of the highest rates of gun ownership but one of the lowest rates of gun deaths because bullets are heavily restricted. I'm from a state with one of the most restrictive gun and ammunition laws and the last major gun massacre we had was in 1949. I feel the ammunition laws are a big component of this.
This made me laugh. The moment people say "we're going to make laws restricting ammo", well- the ammo factories are going to be BOOMING with production 24-7 and there will be all kinds of interests lining pockets to keep that law delayed. And people will stockpile. By the time you restrict ammo, the average gun owner will have enough to supply an Infantry Battalion for a year.
There's also something to be said about "I have enough brass to fill the bed of a small pickup truck, and a reloading kit". Pretty much everything else I need to make ammo is something humans have been able to do since the fucking bronze age, so I think this would make me a nice little fortune on the black market.
Also, remember that even if this idea with more holes in it than the cheese Switzerland is known for- but still manages to work (it won't)- you'd be eliminating gun massacres.
Now, I put a gun in your face and tell you to give me your money. What kind of a gambler are you- wanna bet that I didn't know how to reload my ammo, or didn't acquire a few more?
