I think you're misunderstanding me...I don;t have a problem with hunters doing and paying all of that stuff. I want it expanded to everyone else.

I would adapt the gun safety stuff from hunter's ed and concealed carry classes and make it a mandatory class to own, carry or purchase a firearm. The resulting certificate would have to be combined with some kind of renewal process and fees to do so. Same as concealed carry. And if a non-felon was caught doing any of the above without their permit, we take their stuff.

I'm not clear why you think that this would mean only rich people would have guns. In Kentucky, hunter's education class is less than $20. Concealed carry classes run about $150.

https://fw.ky.gov/Education/Pages/Hunter-Education.aspx

"Hunters will eventually be priced out of the wildlife market. If 10 million people have to continually pay higher prices for the activity of hunting, they will likely have less prosperous economic incentives to keep it up or pass it along to the next generation. Soon that pool will be less than a million."

I don't understand what you mean by this at all. Hunters already pay more for their gun-related activities than any other group. And all gun & amo buyers pay into Pittman-Robertson. I'm just suggesting that many of same regs around hunting could easily be expanded to 'all gun owners'.

"So I’d be fine with some sort of transfers for currently-unregistered weapons between relatives for free."

My gut tells me that a lot of the guns that are used in mass shootings would fall into that category. It would also circumvent any kind of permitting/education requirements and facilitate crimes of passion. So, yeah, I wouldn't be on-board with that.

Now that you have elaborated, that's better, but I still want to see the permitting for a couple of reasons:

- More robust enforcement capabilities. You get caught with a gun, you get your stuff taken away.

- Creates hurdles to ownership. I want the would-be mass shooter or would-be girlfriend murderer to have to wait a while before they can legally buy a gun.

Ha! You know it. I would love to see Klobuchar debate Trump for the same reason I would like to see Harris do it. They have experience picking people apart, though Klobuchar would do it with more grace IMO. And Pete vs. Pence? I would make popcorn and invite friends over.

I'm not saying they would do an amazing job but I believe they would try to do an amazing job every day and that says something.

I think it would take at least 50 years for your plan to actually start to make a dent. I own guns my dad purchased in the 1960s. They aren't going to be sold when I am gone. They will be gifted to relatives. I fear your plan leaves hundreds of millions of guns unregistered for a very long time.

Felons possessing guns almost always starts with a legal purchase by someone else. If you say that guns can't be sold to anyone without a permit, I can hold the person that last owned the gun legally accountable. The permits also create a barrier to ownership for the people that might buy one because they are thinking about killing their ex wife or shooting up a school. It slows things down.

Hunters regulate themselves extensively. What regulations do sports shooters and collectors place on themselves? I suspect many would take their Pittman-Robertson dollars back if they could.

Hunter's Ed establishes a foundation of personal responsibility for the safety of yourself and your fellow hunters (i.e. fellow citizens) and it establishes best practices. Hunting licenses create buy-in and establish funding for conservation (i.e. making things better). Regulations create structure around participation and establish bright lines for enforcement.

If you get caught hunting without a hunter's ed card on file, you are poaching, plain and simple. If you violate hunting regulations, you are also subject to fines, etc. Fish & Wildlife officers have far more latitude than regular police officers, especially concerning seizure of assets. (Example, a friend of a friend was caught shooting one dove over his bag limit - he forfeited a brand-new $500 shotgun).

My idea would be to establish gun owner education programs, establish a yearly gun permit requirement and then when people violate, take their shit. I'm just really tired of the hunting community regulating the heck out of ourselves while rec shooters, collectors and preppers have almost nothing to contend with.

True. But also, the unique function of our federal system is that senators function as independent contractors most of the time. The majority and minority leaders have certain tools to punish bad behavior but it's mostly up to the voters in their states. This is why in the last 10 years or so many fictional dramas have started to highlight just how powerful senators are which also means they be very naughty without a lot of consequences (unless you are Al Franken).

Amy as VP is a different thing though. She has a boss. A good boss gives her a second chance and tells her that she will learn to behave...or else. Of course the opposite could also happen and she could become worse.

I really do believe she is a good person who wants to do good things, but man, those early reports triggered some stuff for me. Hoping it was blown out of proportion.

I don't think there's any way he picks Harris. She has to pay the piper for the first debate. I also agree Klobuchar is a safe pick. And honestly, she would probably be a kick-ass VP.

Are you familiar with the laws around poaching and hunter's education programs?

When you look at the 2016 Democratic primaries, it's pretty fascinating to see how important those first handful of wins are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Major_candidates

But obviously Iowa isn't everything. Just ask Ted Cruz.

That would appeal to those on the Left that have a boner for background checks, but it needs a lot more teeth.

Not surprised she isn't doing well. She can't seem to get traction anywhere. But I'm also really bummed to see Biden moving up. When you look at the results state by state though, I think that's where things shake out differently. Primary wins quickly change the conversation. I'd say odds are at least 50/50 that Uncle Joe nukes himself before the end of the year. They need to get someone like Tim Ryan or Gabbard to fall on the grenade here. Spend a couple of weeks with a psychologist and craft a debate strategy to force Biden to say something unforgivable and then just walk him into the trap.

Baby Boomers, The Generation That Just Won't Go Away

I love the idea of Buttigeig as VP but I really wonder if Harris or Warren's teams would be willing to risk a gay man as the running mate of a female nominee. It feels like he has done about as good of a job as possible of making people forget about his sexuality, but something tells me Pence would take every opportunity to remind people. If i am the DNC though, I'm going to pressure whomever gets the nomination to pick Pete because the worst thing they could do is let him go back to obscurity for 4 years.

My dream ticket on August 20, 2019 is Klubachar/Buttigeig. It's so Midwestern that I would expect their logo to have a casserole on it.

Castro was on the short list but I'm guessing they decided that a woman/Hispanic ticket was too radical in 2016. Now it seems quaint.

Boy, my 2011 prediction was painful to read...

I'm inclined to agree with Jaybird on Biden/Harris. It makes the most sense, although I can't imagine him making an argument for a single term. Has this ever been done? And it feels insulting to Harris, like telling her publicly she isn't getting the job but she can spend the next four years doing career development and then it's hers...

Anyway, i'm already breaking the rules here so my predictions... I think Warren is going to start pulling ahead in the next couple of months. Biden's gaffes are no longer cute with his age. She has a really good base in Iowa and it seems like NH and SC are up for grabs this year. Question is, her running mate. Assuming that her running mate comes from the field of candidates, I think the Booker is the obvious choice. He gets her a few diversity points with the SJ Left (actual people of color don't seem overly enamored with any of the minority candidates this year). I think he will play ball as VP and not try to outshine her. And he is not Castro, so that's a plus from my perspective.

I disagree with most of David's proposal, but I do think it's time for a federal gun permit for all gun owners. We adopted a stamp program for automatic weapons years ago and we do hunting and concealed carry licenses now. Plus driver's licenses, etc. I don't really see any reason why we can't do a permitting program and I think it gives cops more teeth to take people off the street when they are caught without one.

I will also note that while Joel Osteen is far from being the most theologically sound preacher, is he really doing harm? His services are basically just intended to be group positive affirmation sessions. I guess I see it as a net good.

One of my best friends is a DJ so he did our wedding. We were pretty anal about what he played because my wife and I are huge music lovers. My primary request was no chicken dance, no electric slide, etc because I didn't want us to get dragged out there for that nonsense.

We recently attended a wedding where the RSVP cards had a place where you could request a song. I liked that because it allowed the couple to police the requests and not force the DJ to do it. There's always that one joker that thinks it's funny to request a raunchy song or the one he knows was your high school girlfriend's favorite.

That's exactly my point. You drop that E in the name and anything goes.

That sounds about right. Nothing wrong with some bluegrass spirituals but you do that at a special performance in the Convocation Hall on Saturday night, not on Sunday. It should be a curiosity that teaches you about the hillfolk, sort of like watching a documentary about snake-handlers or something like that.

I don't know what is going on in Western Michigan, but in Louisville you can't throw a rock without hitting a non-evangelical church.

I think you're conflating two separate points. Let me help:

1) The types of churches you describe are the minority. most churches are stuffy old protestant and catholic affairs where an acoustic guitar seems edgy.

2) I don't think Western values cause people to somehow ruin Christianity. It's just something that has to be dealt with and at times, mitigated. I just don't think it's quite the existential crisis you make it out to be, since Western churches have been this way at various times for hundreds of years now. I mean, Protestantism was founded on elevating the personal relationship with God. Did anyone really think individualism wouldn't follow?