Asklemmy

I'm generally in favor of the fewest possible restrictions; I'd rather change the cultural attitude and situations that lead to violence in the first place than restrict the tools that people use. Cramming tons of poor people with no hope for a better future into a very small area, for instance; that's a pretty solid predictor of bad outcomes.

First, I think that any costs associated with laws on gun ownership should be covered by income and wealth taxes. (I also think that state and national parks should be funded the same way; I oppose fee-based gov't services. It's it's a public good that the gov't should be performing, then it should be fully funded.)

I would absolutely favor mandatory training for people that wanted to own firearms, but I'd also make sure that training was on-demand, easily accessed, and paid for by income taxes and not fees. (So, like, Cook County, IL couldn't have only one class every month that meets 30 miles east of O'Hare at 3:30am on Tuesday morning, with a maximum of five spots open, all to make sure that very, very few people can legally own firearms.) I do generally think that people should know under what circumstances they can legally use lethal force, and I'd support free--as above--classes for anyone that wanted a carry permit. Carry permits should be free to people that have attended the classes. I support free universal background checks on all firearm transfers. I'd have to consult with how to make background checks on private transfers work, because I wouldn't want Joe Schmoe holding onto a 4473 that I filled out--too much personal information--but I also don't want the gov't having a database of all private transfers that would become a de facto registry.

I'm generally in favor of removing the rights from someone once they have been convicted of a violent offense, but not usually otherwise. (I think that 'violent offense' would need to be carefully defined so that states couldn't e.g. redefine speeding as a violent offense.) I think red flag laws might be a good idea--people planning acts of mass murder usually 'leak' information in the days or weeks prior--but the way they're currently implemented is not good at all, and it can take months to get your rights back.

So in the US when we want to make something illegal, and that thing happens to be a constitutional right, we levy a tax against it. Then we only issue tax stamps to very select few people, or simply refuse to issue them at all. NFA 1934 is one of those weird tax scheme that makes you obtain a $200 tax stamp to have certain types of weapons. They are heavily controlled and non-transferable without going through a similar process.

Here's more info about it if you care to look into it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

We also did this with Marijuana during that same time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

If the job requires it, they'll probably check. If the job doesn't require it but the hiring manager has a bias towards college graduates (hint: they all do) then it works.

Probably depends on the field.

I'm a software developer and only my first job ever cared for my degree. My current employer actually never saw my degree/diploma or anything. I just said I had it.

Now, if you'd work at a bank/in finance or have a degree in a more regulated industry, they'll probably check.

If their field is anything like mine once you’ve had a couple different jobs in the field on your resume they don’t really care about your degree. That first job sure did care, though.

…until someone starts to double check

Which party... Die Partie? It's the only one I would run for. (Or it's Canadian equivalent: Rhinoceros)