Democrats vote against gun control in surprise move

Gun control would make so much more sense if we treated guns like vehicles.
Want to drive a car?
New driver?
Pass a test, and get a provisianal license to operate safely with experienced users in your company.
Test to prove proficiency, ensure you don’t have any restrictive health issues that could impact your safe operation of the unit, validate your insurance coverage and you get a standard operators permit.
Need to use the big equipment?
Take some additional safety courses, beef up your insurance and prove you can handle it - with regular check ins and enhanced supervision and you get a commercial license.
Want to do something different, like the gun equivalent of a motorcycle? Another test and license endorsement to use.
Main theory - you can have anything you want but agree to prove and maintain proficiency and be mentally and physically able to operate it. Regular check ins to ensure your abilities do not wain and annual registration.
This is not crazy. If it works for cars, semi trucks, motorcycles etc - it should work for deadly weapons.
And remember, we have handicapped drivers, we have people on probationary permits etc, breathalyzer start switches, etc …..there are lots of places for reasonable accommodations to the infringed and those with limited or restricted capacity.
But to just turn the keys of a semi truck with a double trailer over to 16 year old with near sighted vision?
They’d say you are crazy.
But anyone of legal age can walk in, grab an AR-15 and disappear into the woodwork for the rest of their lives with capacity for mass assault and no one does anything about it.
- A lot of countries do this and it works. Japan has a variant of this which, while certainly not perfect, is the reason when Abe was assassinated the dude had to basically DIY his own blunderbuss rather than being able to just unload.
- I understand why you say this, but Americans have a right to bear arms, not vehicles. The only reason for all the controls on vehicles is because they are a privilege, not a right.
  
  The law can be whatever we collectively want it to be. The entire point of having Amendments is that the Constitution was supposed to be a living document that we would refine and improve over time.
  
  That's simply incorrect. Nothing in there is stopping gun control laws from being implemented.
  Permits are already a thing in some states, and certain individuals are prohibited from owning guns.
  The right is far from unlimited, even though many seem to think so.
  
  Americans have the right to bear arms just as much as they have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre — it's a right that can be regulated and both already are, one needs more regulation, but people don't seem to understand.
  
  You should be allowed to bear arms without bullets, in a small "right to bear arms zone" far outside of any town, in a desert, with a bunch of "law enforcement" (chuckle) types pointing guns at you while you bear them. Fair is fair.
  We have a right to free political speech too, anytime anywhere. But we dont have those rights anymore outside of "free speech zones" far from anywhere people will see you, and you will be threatened and physically abused and your cars vandalized by cops if you go to one. So cry me a river on your "constitutional" "right to bear arms".
  
  As the founders intended, we have a right to bear a single-bore muzzle-loaded flint-lock. Anything more than that should really be a separate right.

Well the Republicans are public stating they plan on erasing everyone who isn't white so yeah stay strapped
- Great point. When the country has fallen to fascism is not the time to implement gun control.

rEaChInG aCrOsS tHe AiSlE

They’ll need it for the civil war
- Or...this is just another cynical ploy to appeal to the right, since they seem incapable of moving left on any subject.
  
  It's because the politicians want the people to protect them, after they have consistently failed to protect the people.
  
  I don't think so. It happened in the Hawaii state legislature. They don't run on the same incentives over there.
  
  It's because it's not the issue, nor should time be wasted on that right now. We can argue policy later. We need to unite and get the traitor out of office
  
  Oh no…. Reverse psychology wouldn’t work on them … but reverse reverse psychology might work on the swing voters
  
  At this point I think we should upgrade it to Ratchet Law.
- I don't think the Civil War is gonna be Maui lobbing 5.56mm at Oahu...
- The Republicans are actually secret geniuses, they are doing all this authoritarian stuff to trick the left into embracing guns.
  Nah.
- This.

This is one thing I hate about democrats. They barely swing a few undecided voters and throw it all away by bringing up an item that many undecided voters take as a single-issue subject.
Gun issues are a losing topic.
Focus efforts on anything else (healthcare, housing, etc) and gun violence will drop.
- I hate seeing articles like this because it tees you, the commenter, up for assuming that the entire DNC decided to drop their gun control policy.
  This is just for Hawaii. Hawaii voted against this.
  Newsweek is such a dogshit source to be talking about in forums and threads because they write everything assuming that Democrats are a perfectly unified group, all with identical motivations, reasoning, and agendas. We know they're not, but NW can show you a ding in a shoulder plate, and tell you the entire suit of armor is equally vulnerable.
  
  You say that as if this vote result was a bad thing.
  
  They do it almost every election cycle though.
- So good to see more people understanding this. Spend the political capital on shit that will actually reduce our violence, vs virtue signaling to a ever shrinking group of anti-2a voters.
- Totally agree. Gun issues need to be off the table entirely until sanity has returned to government. Dems need to focus on making normal government operations and improving living standards as exciting as the threat of taking over Canada.
- Funny how providing people with the things they need stops violence.
  
  History and human nature says otherwise. There will always be violence of some kind. Someone always wants more.
- Ronnie Reagan and George Bush Sr are notorious gun control freaks and they are GOP. Yes, improving labor rules and public services would relieve the stress on the Americans reducing violence. No wonder the USA experiences so many "going postal" murders.
- While the proposed bill in the article was a poorly-defined measure, I object to the idea that gun control will always be losing. It's one of The Onion's reliable jokes; "No way to present this, says only nation where this kind of thing happens regularly". And that's not because healthcare and housing are perfectly solved issues everywhere else.
  I've spoken with several gun owners in my state who are in perfect agreement that many do not respect the weight those objects have, and follow no safety rules - and would like to see sane regulations on model production and better background check systems, based specifically around how the most gun crimes are committed. We're just in a ridiculous spiral where the right keeps complaining Democrats want to take away all guns, and lawmakers keep aiming for these vague "assault bans" that would accomplish nothing.
- Where the fuck are all your dedicated gun nut independents? Because this issue that you don't like and because of that assume that massive numbers of true independents don't like seems to have added up to jack shit as far as exercising those cherished rights to actually do ANYTHING in response to unmistakeable tyranny.
  And I'm not even talking about starting a hot rebellion. The MAGA shitstains armed up and showed the colors over school boards and vaccines, but actual assaults on democratic constitutional order and this supposedly critically large non-MAGA gun population can't even be arsed to do anything. You've got a hobby and a fantasy that when things get Really Serious, you'll be the hero, but that time is always somehow not actually happening, because it's only supposed to be a fantasy.
  
  Where the fuck are all your dedicated gun nut independents?
  Everywhere, in plain sight, not talking about it on heavily surveiled social media.
  
  I don’t speak for all non-republican gun owners, but I don’t have any fantasy about being a hero with a gun, either for self defense or for defense against a tyrannical government.
  The point is that the issue of gun control doesn’t gain any votes for democrats. The best thing that any of them have said is when Harris said “yeah I carry.” Had she continued with saying she thinks there’s enough gun laws as-is, and talked about enforcement, and other methods to reduce violence there might have been a few votes turned her way.

So the media again is helping stir the pot. When you use vague language like "assault-style" weapons, it makes it open to wide interpretation as to what an "assault-style" weapon is. You. the reader, are assuming and envisioning the AR-15, the AK-47 but it can also include semi-automatic hand guns or some types of shotguns. If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc. They should also quit banning by cosmetics to define "assault-style" weapons. You can easily change your fully-automatic rifle to look like a Nerf gun (fully automatics are illegal anyway). Here's a bit more on the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
People should actually read the laws on the books and quit relying on the media or their politicians to do the reading for them. They may find there's already several bans on "assault-style" weapons because specific language is used. People should also focus on the loopholes instead and campaign to get those closed. Politicians won't do it so long as the NRA keeps shoving cash into their pockets.
- What in hell is an "assault pistol" please ?
  I think we all stopped charging the enemy waving a pistol during WW1 didnt we ? This feels like something from a Blackadder episode.
  It's referenced in the newsweek article. I read the wiki which says Hawaii have defined it, but the wiki links dont actually go to a definition.
  The vast majority of pistols sold are semi auto, and they all have a pistol grip which, as I understand it are 2 of the main characteristics used to define assault weapon in the US
  Confused foreigner.
  
  The confusion is why the assault weapons ban in the 90's failed. They did not specify semi-automatic handgun, revolver, or pistol grip short barrel shotgun. You are correct. "Assault pistol" is extremely vague. In my opinion, politicians do this to appease the NRA and the gun nuts while completely disregarding what responsible gun owners are asking for. Most responsible gun owners want the loopholes closed. The politicians can just shrug and say "Well we tried!" Or use it as an excuse to kick incumbents out that didn't kiss the ring.
  Most of this theater is at the federal level. The state level is what will make the difference which is why I encourage people to check the firearms sections of their laws.
  
  Each state has their own definition of what an assault rifle is, and that's what decidedes what's banned. (Bans are by state, and most have no ban.)
  For some its a pistol grip, a detachable mag, and one of like 3 other features. Two or more of those and its an assault rifle.
  Pistols are regulated seperately.
- If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc
  That's how you get weird-ass weapons designed specifically to work around the law though. E.g in Russia they regulate harder any weapon that has rifling on more than half of the barrel (otherwise it's considered a hunting shotgun iirc), so of course there are tons of Russian civilian weapons that are basically military stuff with shitty rifling and locked to semi auto
  
  It does turn into a game of "one-up" but this is why you get actual weapons experts to advise on the language of the law and not business owners and lawyers who have no idea what a gun is other than it makes them a lot of money or its scary.

I completely disagree with banning rifles and pistols. However, I am all for intensive background checks, psychological tests, firearm classes and tests, mandatory storage safety with inspections and licensing classifications depending on what you want to buy. The Europeans do this correctly and the US allows lunatics to own firearms.
- mandatory storage safety with inspections
  Here in the U.S. our Constitution prohibits the government from performing searches of people's homes with first having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and a warrant to search their home that has been signed by a judge. Const. Amend. IV.
  
  As part of getting an FFL, you effectively waive that right; the ATFE can drop by the address on the license, unscheduled, for inspection, and if you don't let them in, your FFL we be immediately rescinded, and nearly any judge will approve a search warrant for that location over the phone in minutes.
  We could do the same for individual owners, just like dealers, and there would be supporting precedent. (But, it would certainly be subject to judicial (including SCOTUS) review.)
- Those will be used against letting leftist get guns.
  
  "If you've smoked weed in the last 5 years or have Trump Derangement Syndrome, I'm afraid I can't sell this to you."

Well yeah, they might need those guns to topple fascists…
- Do you think Americans have it in them to actually do that?. I think when tyranny comes knocking at their door, many Americans will comply and many will even want to join them, maybe some isolated pockets go full Waco, TX on them but the goverment has spent trillions of American tax money on building weapons of war that they've used on foreign civilian populations for decades, all they have to do is point it inwards and then it doesn't matter how many Glocks you've got does it.
- In that case, let's ban them
  Republicans most likely

A gun control measure in Hawaii failed by a narrow vote this week, after several state Democrats crossed the aisle to vote against it.
The defeat of Senate Bill 401, which sought to ban assault-style rifles in the state, shows an unexpected division in a party typically unified on gun control.

Smart move.

Hawaii state Senator Joy Buenaventura, who is typically a supporter of gun control measures, said the bill would criminalize existing owners of assault rifles, per Hawaii News Now.
She said: "Now, by their mere possession, because we decide to pass this bill, we decide to label them as criminals and that to me, it's unethical and should not be tolerated by this body."
However, Senate Judiciary chair Karl Rhoads disagreed with this take on the bill saying it allowed for "grandfathering."
Sooo... which is it?
But yeah. Obviously America should do this.
- YUP. Seems like an important contradiction where a good journalist could then go to the bill text and determine which one of them is lying.
  
  Says it "allows" for grandfathering, so I bet they pick & choose who's a criminal and who gets a pass.
- Grandfathering requires firearm registration. They did the same thing with the fully automatic firearms ban in the 80's. Now the kids and grandkids of people who previously legally owned firearms have to make a decision. Some of these firearms would be worth 6 figures or more if they were registered, and some have significant historical value, but instead it's a serious felony to own them and they had no say in how it ended up in this state.
  Illinois also very recently did a semi auto registration, and a lot of folks did not comply, because they believed that is just the first step to confiscation. Now these people's family are going to have the same problem in a few years.
  Just because there is a grandfather clause, doesn't mean it's going to automatically make everyone law abiding. And one person's decision is going to impact their family for generations.
  
  They did the same thing with the fully automatic firearms ban in the 80’s.
  There was no ban in the 80s. For full auto firearms to be legally owned, they had to have been registered since the establishment of the 1934 NFA.
  What happened in the 80s was the closing of the registry to prevent new full auto guns from being added, but existing guns to have been legally owned would have already been registered.

What a pointless bill. Assault rifles have been illegal nationwide for decades.
- The bill provides the exact definition they use for assault rifle which appears to be more strict than federal law. So, no, it is not pointless.
  https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB401/id/3226101
- Why are you using a term as vague as "assault rifle"?
  
  Because it's the term used in the article we're discussing. It's not vague, assault rifle has a pretty solid definition. It's essentially a select fire rifle that uses rounds smaller than machine guns but larger than pistols.
- What do you mean? Assault rifles are perfectly legal
  
  Assault rifles are full auto or burst fire. They're not legal for civilians without a specific form of FFL, which is difficult and expensive to get. Even with an FFL you will probably run into problems with state and local laws. That's why you'll pretty much only see assault rifles at places like the ones outside Vegas where they let you pay to fire one for a few minutes.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
- No you didn't.
  
  You know the A in AR stands for a company called Armalite right?
  
  Say hi to the ATF for me lol

This makes me kinda concerned tbh but nonetheless its a welcome surprise. The only bigger warning sign would be pritzker lifting the assault weapon ban in my state. That to me would signal they know something is gonna happen.

Love a vague headline that tells me nothing about how to think.
Edit: I meant but about how to think, oh well.
- newsweek is a right-wing rag that promotes conspiracy theories
  EDIT: here are some details:
  In November 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Newsweek had "taken a marked radical right turn by buoying extremists and promoting authoritarian leaders" since it hired conservative political activist Josh Hammer as editor-at-large. It noted the magazine's elevation of conspiracy theorists, publication of conspiracy theories about COVID-19, views such as support for a ban on all legal immigration to the United States and denying adults access to trans-affirming medical care, and failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest in the content published on Hammer's opinion section and podcast.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek#Controversies
  
  A terrible publication and source.
- Excuse me did you just ASK to be told how to think?

What surprise?
Aren't Democrats like the backup voting option for Republicans, always?

- Hawaii was a sovereign kingdom that was invaded and taken over by America, and the indigenous population massacred until they fell into line. You've got a lot of nerve to talk down to an indigenous people who are keeping their options for defending themselves open under the fascist rule of a white supremacist.