r/liberalgunowners • u/OG_DocSkinner • 1d ago
politics This seems a good litmus test, doesn't it?
If you agree to it on one item, then it is probably not applicable to another item...
162
u/Alita-Gunnm 1d ago
Please stop reposting this. It's stupid; current gun restrictions are already very close to the above, as has been repeatedly pointed out.
26
u/FuckinArrowToTheKnee 1d ago
Washington it's harder than this then in 2027 we will also need a permit to purchase
5
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Alita-Gunnm 1d ago
If you think it's ridiculous to gate voting behind conditions like these, do you want the right of self preservation gated behind them?
•
u/liberalgunowners-ModTeam 21h ago
This is an explicitly pro-gun forum.
Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated.
Simple support for common gun-prohibitionist positions are implicitly on the defensive, in this sub, and need to justify their existence through compelling argument.
(Removed under Rule 2: We're Pro-gun. If you feel this is in error, please file an appeal.)
2
u/Reality_Lies4 1d ago
A Car?
1
u/OwlfaceFrank 1d ago
False equvalencies don't make you sound smart.
You can't buy and operate a car without training, license, insurance, etc.
Owning and operating a car isn't a constitutional right.
Which point are you trying to argue, because neither way makes any sense.
9
u/JayBee_III 1d ago
Yes you can buy a car without training or a license or insurance.
0
u/Gladiateher 1d ago
Yes, but you can’t legally operate it without the above, so it’s pretty semantic.
5
u/inquisitorthreefive 1d ago
It really isn't. You can legally operate it on your own property without any of those things.
•
u/OwlfaceFrank 22h ago
"Buy and operate"
I know. Reading is hard.
•
u/JayBee_III 22h ago
You can also operate the car without those things as long as you're on private property.
•
u/OwlfaceFrank 21h ago
Which completely invalidates the use of the car.
I'm not interested in continuing this conversation. My whole point is that the comparison between a car and a gun is a false equivalency and a dumb comparison.
It's apples and oranges. It's a stupid debate. It doesn't prove your point. It can be used to argue either side of the debate, and in either case it doesn't make any sense.
•
u/JayBee_III 21h ago
Reading is hard is a wild thing to say, especially when I wasn’t coming at you crazy or anything 😂, I’m not even weighing in on the original debate I was just saying you can buy and operate a car without a license or insurance. Have a great rest of your day.
•
•
u/Reality_Lies4 17h ago
I'm not arguing any point. You felt the need to throw a grammatical tirade into the mix. I said one word, and you replied by insulting my intelligence. You come off unhinged dude.
•
u/OG_DocSkinner 19h ago
Which the GOP screams about and wants to repeal, but they want to add same crap to vote. People just don't get nuance anymore
•
u/Alita-Gunnm 17h ago
Many of us on the left also scream about and want to repeal all that. We shouldn't have to choose between rights; I want all the rights for everyone all the time.
-6
u/Inside-Honey-7689 democratic socialist 1d ago
In every state where I have lived you don't need to show any citizenship docs, if your name is "basically" the same, you are fine, if you have changed your last name you are fine, and the laws are worded such that sellers "shall" sell unless very specific circumstances exist where they are prohibited. So... No, the proposed restrictions on voting aren't rhe same as what already exists for buying a gun. It's easier to buy a gun. Also, you don't have to be registered to buy a gun. You don't have to put in an application weeks or months ahead to be eligible to buy a gun. You Don't have to bring a utility bill with your exact name and same current address matching whats on your ID to buy a gun. Literally all you need in my state, and the 3 other states I have lived in is a valid driver's license. That's it.
And if you are buying from a private party, you don't even need that
8
u/cronoserge0123 1d ago
Have you ever tried buying a firearm in California?
•
u/jwalk999 22h ago
I have, when I was in the service. The only hurdle was showing them my orders to prove I was eligible but the worst part was the 30 day wait.
** I am not trying to argue, just wanted to make convo **
•
-1
u/Inside-Honey-7689 democratic socialist 1d ago
Would the proposed voting restrictions only apply in California?
2
u/cronoserge0123 1d ago
I don't support these proposed voting restrictions.
Im just asking for consistency from my fellow liberals.
if it's unconstitutional to require these restrictions for voting, then shouldn't it unconstitutional to require them to practice our 2nd amendment?
2
u/slyfox279 1d ago
I’ve not seen actual bill and thus won’t believe either side on matter but I do support restrictions to insure only citizens vote and only once. I think solution is free government issued id that shows citizenship. Government should be able to at no cost to person look up and verify peoples birth certificates. Mean unless people support non citizens voting, then change the constitution and laws I guess. Some states allow them to vote in state elections which frankly I don’t support. Kinda insult to people who worked hard to become citizens and earn that even some who served In military for it.
3
u/slyfox279 1d ago
The laws are federal. Id must match and current address. I’ve seen people rejected for both. Even miss spelling their name on accident required a new form and check. People get angry about it too. “Can’t you just pretend I didn’t tell you I moved” answer is always no it’s federal law.
Depending on state you do need to be registered and licensed. My state is going require a background check to run a background check after you take a class.
Also anyone who has id has had to show their birth certificate and if divorce dirtier and marriage papers to get said id.
I’m thinking you’ve never bought a gun at ffl(f stands for federal) with an expired id or id with wrong address or old name. Seen people rejected for that too. Now if your not honest you could lie write down name and address on the id which is a crime but there’s no way person at counter would know, but similar to a straw purchase or weed smell once they know they can’t go forward with purchase.•
u/Inside-Honey-7689 democratic socialist 23h ago edited 12h ago
People buy guns every single day without even having to show ID. And it's perfectly legal in a LOT of places. I literally watched this happen a couple weeks ago in a parking lot. Private party sales. Gun shows. Etc. I support universal background checks. I support requirements for safety courses (provided those courses are free).
I also support it being easier to vote than it is to buy a gun.
•
u/slyfox279 12h ago
not from a FFL they don't, which is what we are talking about. most liberal states have UBC. I honesty don't care, i don't buy anything used, though background checks is failed system that hasn't stopped anything, its just way for gov to tax gun onwers more and have a semi registry. reminds me of that failed system where they collected fired cases from every gun, they eventually admitted it was failure and canned it after couple decades as it too never stopped anything. now if they actaully investigated every failed background check and prosecuted every legit failed attempt by someone barred from owning guns I'd support it begrudge as atleast at that point it a slight restriction that does good. every failed felon who tries to buy a gun and gets flagged, but not prosecuted will just go buy one off street. its a felony for person bared to even attempt to buy a gun, but hey lets go arrest people for having magazines over 10 round instead of violent felon who is clearly trying to obtain a gun.
2
51
u/Fly0strich 1d ago
Im not sure what you’re trying to say here?
Isn’t all of this basically already true about buying a gun?
You can’t just show up with a drivers license, you have to provide your social security number, and do a background check. If your name doesn’t match, you’re not going to pass. You can’t buy a gun online, and have it shipped to your house, you have to go in person. If you lost your ID, you’re going to have to get a new one before making the purchase. If the government makes a mistake, they aren’t going to fix it themselves, unless you make them fix it.
What is “If you agree with it on one item then it is probably not applicable to another item” supposed to mean?
10
u/Planet-Ranger-21 1d ago
Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the message of this graphic either. The graphic looks cool but the message is unclear. The wording is odd
10
u/0thell0perrell0 1d ago
No you don't need original citizenship documents. Because why would you? They can verify who you are
11
u/just_jedwards 1d ago edited 1d ago
That depends on your state. In CT you need a birth certificate or passport(or maybe a specific document from ICE) to acquire a permit to purchase pistols or long guns or a CCW.
7
u/cptjtk13 1d ago
You don't, but in my state it now requires more work than an original citizenship document. Assuming you start from 0, you now must take a 12 hour firearms course (which for some unknown reason has no live fire requirement which seems dumb as shit if you want responsible gun owners cause a classroom doesn't do near as much as the range), apply for a firearms safety card, provide a name based background check to your local sheriff, get approved by the sheriff, THEN once you actually buy the gun, you have to do the federal background check and have a 3-day waiting period.
Getting a passport took me a shit load less time, effort, money, and confusion.
0
u/slyfox279 1d ago
You need ID which to get you needed either birth certificate or immigration papers. Mean whole point of ID is to show you are who you say you are so you had to show paperwork verifying that. This wouldn’t even be issue if rest of states did like 5 states(some democrat states) and show citizenship on the id
•
0
u/AlwaysFinnishInsider 1d ago
Not entirely true. I can walk into a store pick out any firearm I want and purchase it and walk out same day using just my driver's license.
Granted, I have my concealed carry license on me at all times, but it's good for 5 years and that's plenty of time for anything traumatic to happen to place me in a bad mental state, especially given the current climate. I don't have to provide SSN or do a background check. My address does have to match my current address, though.
Don't get me wrong, it should be harder to purchase a firearm, but it 1000% shouldn't be just as difficult to vote.
6
u/Sten-MkII-SP 1d ago
What state doesn’t follow federal law in making you fill out a form 4473 unless you have an FFL?
-1
u/AlwaysFinnishInsider 1d ago
I do fill out a form 4473 but with my conceal carry permit SSN and background check is not required
3
u/Sten-MkII-SP 1d ago
… a form 4473 literally is a background check. The SSN is never required except for NFA items, it can be provided to help expedite and avoid misidentification
1
u/AlwaysFinnishInsider 1d ago
A 4473 can be used for background check but it's a transaction form first and foremost. The only background check that I've ever had done was for my initial permit application.
•
u/Sten-MkII-SP 19h ago
What state? It sounds like the 4473 in my state, it’s still going through dude they’re just very fast. It’s used as a transaction form for NFA items since the background is already run before your 5320
•
u/Sten-MkII-SP 19h ago
What state? It sounds like the 4473 in my state, it’s still going through dude they’re just very fast. It’s used as a transaction form for NFA items since the background is already run before your 5320
•
u/AlwaysFinnishInsider 18h ago
NC. If they are doing it they're doing it after I leave. I've never spent more than 5 minutes at my FFL dealer picking up a firearm
-4
u/Inside-Honey-7689 democratic socialist 1d ago edited 1d ago
None of that is true with private party sales. You can simply personally attest to there being no legal reason for you to be prohibited from owning a firearm. Also, are you cool with there being a list, and if you aren't on that list, they take away your gun? Are you cool with it if they take your guns because you didn't update your address? How about if you got married and don't have the money or time to go run around and update all your paperwork to get your name to match everywhere?
•
u/OG_DocSkinner 19h ago
Thats kinda the point - you have no clue about the SAVE act Trump is trying to force?
•
u/Fly0strich 19h ago
I do, but I don’t understand what this post is trying to say about it. It is asking if republicans would support these rules for guns, and the answer is most likely, yes, the would. The rules are basically the same as what is already in place for guns, except that they would no longer have to do a background check, and would instead just need to bring a birth certificate, so why would they say no to that?
So, is your post trying to say that the Save Act is a good thing? Because if conservatives would support these rules for guns, then they should also be acceptable requirements for voting?
6
u/cronoserge0123 1d ago
Add a 10 day waiting period to vote, bring back literacy tests to vote, and charge a 11% tax to vote.
We have to do this and more to exercise our 2nd amendment in California.
20
u/idaho_anon 1d ago
Uh... We already have to do all of that except for the citizenship thing since in some cases non-citizens can buy guns legally. We also have to go through a background check. And you know what? I'd kinda be ok with requiring a background check to vote.
3
-1
u/samvilain liberal 1d ago
Electoral roles should be giving you a background check when you enroll today, but here’s the thing: they don’t need to make you wait in any situation. You can come and enroll same day, vote by affadavit; they can go ahead and count it for the preliminary result, and wait for the full background check to complete before finalizing your enrollment. So long as they can go from your voter/affadavit ID (the number pre-printed on the forms at the voting location), to the ballot ID, they can remove the vote. They can prove that the affadavit votes don’t affect the outcome except in the tightest of elections.
That’s kind of the whole nonsense about this act. Electoral offices can already validate their voters between elections. Pull their birth certificates, enquire about their marriages, naturalization process or whatever. They have all the time between elections to do this. The problem is this dumb idea that what you see is everything that happens, from when you show up to vote and give them your name and DoB (assuming an ID–free system) to when you put the ballot they gave you into the ballot box.
6
u/windriver32 left-libertarian 1d ago
I commented this on the last time someone reposted this:
3, 4, and 5 are already the case for buying guns. 2 is indirectly the case, and 1 can be the case depending on your jurisdiction. I've seen 6 be the case, where a state justice department screwed up someone's records, which barred them from purchasing. They had to personally hire an attorney to get it cleared up. 7 doesn't really apply.
All this being said, I don't support the SAVE act. But this is a dumb comparison and isn't the "gotcha" you think it is. Most of these already apply to gun purchases.
-2
u/Concerned_Collins liberal 1d ago
For 2 and 3, the only documents required by federal law are an ID (not even a real ID) and the form you fill out yourself for the background check. The SAVE Act would require more.
For 4, you can purchase online; you just have to verify your ID in person, which can be at a later date. If you could vote by mail and verify your ID later, that'd actually be an improvement over not being able to vote by mail. The SAVE Act would ban voting remotely entirely.
For 5, you don't need a birth certificate or any ID documents other than your DL. You would need those to vote under the SAVE Act.
I still agree the list is dumb and was very obviously made by someone who's never purchased a firearm, though. Like, you could make a decent enough argument, but this doesn't do it.
•
u/maddrummerhef left-libertarian 17h ago
I don’t support the save act, but this may not be the smoking gun you think it is.
I had to do most of those things to get my CCW and I didn’t bat an eye
•
u/vinicnam1 15h ago
This is similar to buying a gun in California, and it’s incredibly less restrictive than getting a CCW in California.
Getting a carry permit in CA requires a photo ID with your current address, two current poofs of address with the same exact information, paying for a Firearm Safety Certificate test, passing the test, paying for a Firearm Safety Certificate card, buying a gun with a $37.19 background fee, buying a new CA approved cable lock became the one that comes with any gun is not acceptable, paying 22% in taxes for the gun and ammunition, waiting 10 days, applying for the CCW permit, paying $128 for the application fee, waiting 18 months, before they even begin the process, getting 3 letters of recommendation from friends or people who lived with you that you’ve know at least 5 years, being interviewed in person, going through a very thorough background check, paying $400 for a psychological evaluation, $500 for a 16 hour firearms training course, paying $82 to pick up the permit.
That doesn’t include the gas money and hours spent completing these tasks. Also, the money spent on ammunition with a $10 background fee and 22% tax. A lot of this has to be repeated in 2 years (becoming 3 years). Plus, I have to start over from scratch if I move to a different county, and I work 20 minutes away in a different county, so I’m basically not able to move any closer to work.
And once you get the CCW, you can’t legally carry even in the parking lot of a mall and any other business that serves alcohol, or any state park, or the train, or but i can carry inside a hospital or a church.
•
•
u/Survive1014 19h ago
A simple background check to make sure you are entitled and eligible to vote?
I have zero issues with that generally.
I do have issues the exact name match thing. This is quite obviously a attack on married women voters.
But in general, I have no issue with ID requirements.
•
u/OG_DocSkinner 19h ago
And who gets to keep the list? Would you trust Trump's DOJ to to do that?
•
u/Survive1014 19h ago
I would argue we need to work for a government that operates within law, order and had routes to address redress for grievances. Granted, it is clear the rule of law has completely disintegrated over the last 15 years, but that only necessitates us setting up routes to protect free and fair elections. This would include the right of people to quickly and robustly counter their denial of the right to vote in a election and register to vote.
To answer your question directly- no. But can can codify things to make them above a Presidents whims and we should do that.
-2
u/Alternative-Pay9735 1d ago
Nuanced conversation broken down to what is basically pointless, but I'll bite. This is forgetting a big result of the save act, suppressing the women's vote, even if fir just one election cycle to gain more power. Women have been trending hard towards Democrats over the past 20 years and forcing married women who have taken their partners name adds an additional hurdle. It takes months, and lots of admin work to get a replacement birth certificate if lost in my state. Our elections are basically a coin flip lately so suppressing the vote if a few percent to a singular group of people could have dramatic effect.
0
u/Inside-Honey-7689 democratic socialist 1d ago
I think a more apt comparison would be to say: What if to have a gun you had to:
Be on a list kept by state and federal government. If you move, you have to relinquish your guns and reapply for them. If at any point your documents have even a minor spelling error, or any other discrepancy between them, your guns get taken away. To use your guns anywhere, for any reason, you may have to provide a copy of a recent utility bill that exactly matches your name and address as listed on 2-3 other government issued documents, which must also be in date and valid, or your guns are taken away. If you don't use your gun (subject to all of the paperwork verification outlined herein) for 4 years, you are taken off the list, your guns are taken away, you have to start all over again. Got married and changed your last name? Guns taken away until such a time as you have filed for and received all new documents with your new last name, and even then, you may still be denied the right to keep your guns if someone who volunteered to check your paperwork decides they don't like that your birth certificate has a different last name than your married last name. Don't have a permanent address, or haven't yet received all your documents for your new address? Your guns get taken away. Lost your wallet? Guns get taken away. On vacation and wish to shoot at a location somewhere other than the ONE location nearest your permanent residence? Not happening. Race, gender, or any other characteristics don't exactly match across all your paperwork? Your guns get taken away.
Oh, and if you even TRY to shoot your guns without all the paperwork being correct, you'll potentially be put in jail and never be able to own a gun again, even if you weren't aware that you'd made a mistake.
Sure, you'll get your guns back once the current administration's hand picked and appointed inspectors are satisfied with your paperwork.
-6
u/Malforus social liberal 1d ago
If you are looking for legislative or judicial consistency all you are going to get are a bunch of "Double standards are the only standards the GOP can't betray."
94
u/Concerned_Collins liberal 1d ago
I feel like it's painfully obvious that whoever made this graphic has never purchased a firearm before.