Roll back open and concealed carry.

No guns anywhere but prescribed areas like out in the woods hunting animals. Which they pretend why they need guns;
Definitely not on the steps on any capital building.

Federal crime to stock pile any weapons.

“Militias” should be “well regulated” as it says in the Constitution.

No unlicensed sale of guns at flea markets or rummage sales.

Demilitarization of police forces.

Help in communities where desperation creates gun violence.

Roll back open and concealed carry. - Not a driver of gun violence. Won't do a thing about murders occurring in homes, premeditated out-of-the-home shootings (like mass or workplace shootings), nor with career criminals who carry for their "business" needs. CCW permittees are extraordinarily unlikely to commit non-premeditated crimes with guns.

No guns anywhere but prescribed areas like out in the woods hunting animals. Which they pretend why they need guns;
Definitely not on the steps on any capital building. Ibid

Federal crime to stock pile any weapons. "Stockpile", like "assault weapon", is an arbitrary term subject to arbitrary change based on politics. What is a stockpile? 10? 5? 2? Also, no matter how many guns I have I can only use one or two at a time. I would be comfortable with a 12-gun-per-year transaction limit; IMO if you're buying or selling more than 12 guns a year you're a dealer or collector and should require some kind of license, collect sales taxes, conduct background checks, and any income should be subject to income tax.

“Militias” should be “well regulated” as it says in the Constitution. The only militia I'm in is the "unorganized militia", per 10 USC 311, whereas I'm a male between the ages of 17 and 45, at least for a few more months. Do you want to exclude all civilian women and all men over age 45 from having guns?

No unlicensed sale of guns at flea markets or rummage sales. Universal background checks are a good idea, IMO, but this is similar to the incorrect idea that flea markets, garage sales, and gun shows are magically exempt from state laws regarding gun sales.

Demilitarization of police forces. No argument from me here, but I doubt it will help non-police gun violence.

Help in communities where desperation creates gun violence. We have to change the social conditions that lead to violence and crime. We had a 50% drop in murders and crime in the 90's because in the 70's we (Democrats) were able to pass two types of legislation that changed the social conditions: the widespread use of birth control,including abortion services, and removing toxins, particularly leaded gasoline fumes, from our air and water. We can't change the social conditions if we're not running things, and we spend a lot of time NOT running things because we target the tools of violence and crime (guns) instead.

Most are not regulated. Militia in name only.
“Elect Republicans”. 70% of America wants gun control.

You can’t predict “ electing republicans”

I stand by my opinions.

I can't predict election Republicans? Really?

Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Do you really think that Clinton and Gore's gun-control attempts didn't convince 269 Floridians to switch from Democrat to Republican because of that particular piece of culture war legislation? Dolt45 won three critical states by a combined total of, what, 70,000 votes? Do you really think that Democrats screaming about "assault weapons" constantly for 30 years didn't cement a net of 70,000 voters against them?

For much of the last 20 years, the GOP has held most of the governorships and most of the legislative assemblies in this country. While obviously there are many reasons for this, the fact is that gun control drives up Republican turnout in greater proportion to driving up Democratic turnout. And the gun control legislation is not some "morally correct thing to do" thing like minority rights or woman's rights or protecting the environment. It's part political pandering, it's part culture war, and it's part avoiding criticism of things like capitalism, the drug war, and American society.

Yeah, there are gun laws that we can implement that will be somewhat effective, but those are not what the Democrats trot out with flourishes and fanfare.

You probably want to ban "assault weapons". Well, rifles are used to murder about 400 people a year. AR-15s and AK-47s are a kind of rifle, so the signature piece of legislation that the Democrats resurrect on a regular basis would ban a subset of rifles that are used to murder 400 people a year. While handguns are used to murder about 8,000 people a year.

They're responding to mass shootings by focusing on the guns used. Again, not discussing the role that media plays, or the economy, or our social safety net, or other social or economic issues, but they've decided that the thing to blame is rifles designed 60 years ago because, dammit, guns should all look like they did in 1912!

It's window dressing. "They look evil and modern, so ban them! Who can stand against that idea??? It's a winner!!!" says the Democratic minority. And then an election goes by, and... they're still a minority. It's taken an economic collapse, a pandemic, and a toxic racist sexist criminal lying whining conman president for us to get to the point where we *might* be able to get the House and the Senate and the Presidency... maybe. Something that we should have far more often!

Clinton's gun ban (and see how the Clinton name is now irreparably linked with a gun ban) did virtually nothing to combat gun crime, any more than that corrupt bastard Giuliani's "broken windows" policing did anything to fight crime. Crime fell steeply in the 90's all over the country.

And banning new sales of "assault weapon" rifles can't account for a 50% murder rate drop when rifles only account for 5% of all murders. The math makes no sense.

I'm trying to give you facts so you you can have informed opinions.

If you want uninformed options, that is your businesses

No one is suggesting guns be banned

Joe wants the gun control options go take it up with him. I’m with Joe. The question is how it will look. Those were my opinion on how a posed question.

Take your suggestions to Joe and the author of the thread asking how it might look.

I didn’t ask you how it might look.

Unfortunately, the standard gun control model has become gospel and unquestionable.

"No one is suggesting guns be banned"

From Joe Biden's "Plan to End Our Gun Violence Epidemic"

QUOTE: "Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines."

There's that word "ban" - right up front!

QUOTE: "Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act."

Everyone who currently owns a tactical style sporting rifle would be required to register it like a machine gun. This is a de facto ban, which would apply to ten to fifteen million firearms in the US.

QUOTE: "Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities." "This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act."

Under penalty of what, exactly? 10, 15, 20 years in prison?

Of course, another option is non-compliance - which you can expect from a great number of tactical sporting firearms owners.

Everyone who is forced to bury their scary looking black gun in a sealed drum out back - is not likely to vote blue.

And all of this is to "end" the gun violence of roughly 400 deaths per year from rifles? Joe Biden's "Plan to End Our Gun Violence Epidemic" has many, many other good ideas with real potential to address the issues that cause gun violence. The Democrat's obsessive insistence on banning scary looking black guns has cost us deeply at the polling place, and cost real, human lives. After Sandy Hook there was strong bipartisan political will to enact effective gun control, and the Democrats wasted it making an assault weapons ban the lynchpin of the legislation. We could have had a nationwide universal background check in place for the past six years but, sigh, instead we get people making a quite legitimate claim that Congress will do nothing about it - and tarring "both sides" with the do-nothing brush.

And as the disinterested reader can see, that sort tend to scarper when confronted with inconvenient truths