Ok but like, this is basically how it is already. Then look at Illinois, there's an entire extra license you need to get to even buy or own a gun or ammo
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
737 points (97.9% liked)
Political Memes
12238 readers
2812 users here now
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
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Yes!
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.
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".
I would contend guns are the perfect unifier for left and right people groups. I don't know anyone that doesn't stand in agreement that our governing body needs to be well aware that the people are armed against them.
And we the people need to know we are unified to prevent a governing body from splitting the room and taking advantage of us.
I don't live in the states, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if no-one could just buy a gun. Republicans nor democrats. The US hasn't exactly shown that the second amendment has bigger upsides than the HUMONGOUS downsides.
You can't "just buy a gun". Most states require permits, and the feds require a background check..
I don't think people should ever give up a right. But let's say the second amendment doesn't make sense anymore. The constitution contains detailed instructions on how to change it. Liberals, though, advocate for ignoring or reinterpreting it. That's dangerous. If we let the government do that to one right, what's to stop them from doing that to all of them? Especially if we can't shoot them for it.
I feel less safe in countries where I am not allow the ability to defend myself.
I get that you feel that way emotionally, but statistically it's nonsense. Your chances of being shot in the US are 22 times higher than in the EU.
What parts of the US? And are guns the only concern? How about the right coded stabbings? Hit by a car where cars aren't supposed to be? Assaulted by a drunk? Assaulted by an immigrant? Assaulted by a local? Considerably higher in the EU.
You avoided some big logical gaps to make your statement.
The reality is more like global leading countries are safer than others. You are just focused factoid that ignores a whole lot of others things.
load more comments
(20 replies)
Tell me you've never actually bought a gun without telling me you've never bought a gun.
Yeah. I used to sell guns and we denied people for all kinds of stuff like this.
My favorite part had to do with addresses. Certain people in my state (e.g. police officers) are allowed to have their address on their license be different from their actual home address (e.g.courthouse address).
But the ATF doesn't care about state laws. If the address on your license isn't your home address, you can't buy a gun.
Other common reasons we denied sales:
-
You have the same name as someone else who is a felon, so the NICS check gets flagged as a DELAY that takes 45 days to come back, but the 4473 is only good for 30 days, so you have to fill out a new one and get a new NICS check that takes 45 days to come back, but that second 4473 has expired... There's actually a federal exception allowing transfers on delays after 3 days, but many states and businesses prohibit it. It happened with one of our gun salesmen who was legally allowed to handle, own, and sell firearms, but not purchase one.
-
We see that your license is expired, so your wife decides to buy it as a gift (which is legal), but - since she's trying to buy for you because you can't - it would actually be a straw purchase.
-
You misunderstood one of the questions on the 4473 and checked "no" instead of N/A.
This ALL DAY. Even the states with the loosest laws have about that many conditions.
I bought one from a private person with…nothing. No documents at all. Just cash.
Just because you did it doesn't mean you did what you are supposed to.
Granted, what you did doesn't upset me. Also - what you did can be done in any country, no matter their laws.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
I used to joke about putting a suppressor on a .22 untill my uncle did it when I was a teenager. I still love shooting small game at 75 yards with it. Probably my most used gun.
load more comments
(15 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
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".
load more comments
(1 replies)
Still not sure why someone doesnt just propose this. Exact bill, change the topic.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›