Debate Now Common sense gun control

Your job is to come up with legislation that will keep irresponsible people away from guns without interfering with responsible gun ownership.
It can't be done
- It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking another law.
- Restrictions on the law abiding do not affect criminals who, by their nature, ignore such restrictions.
And so, all we have are unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms -- in which there can be no sense, common or otherwise, found.
 
It can't be done
- It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking another law.
- Restrictions on the law abiding do not affect criminals who, by their nature, ignore such restrictions.
And so, all we have are unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms -- in which there can be no sense, common or otherwise, found.


Every gun-control law by the Democrats is aimed at the most law-abiding group in the country: licensed gun owners.


Someone should put 2 and 2 together and realize who the Democrats favor.
 
Every gun-control law by the Democrats is aimed at the most law-abiding group in the country: licensed gun owners.


Someone should put 2 and 2 together and realize who the Democrats favor.
no such thing as a licensed gun owner,, you dont need a license to own a gun,,
 
Every gun-control law by the Democrats is aimed at the most law-abiding group in the country: licensed gun owners.
Someone should put 2 and 2 together and realize who the Democrats favor.
To quote myself:

[Democrats] want the state to have a monopoly on force, which they know cannot happen so long as the citizenry remains armed.
Thus, their goal is to make the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms so difficult that people simply do not try.

Want proof?
Ask them how much gun control is :enough".
Ask them what they believe constitutes an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
They do not have an cogent answer.
 
1. The goal is to prevent irresponsible people from accessing guns while allowing responsible people to access guns. Irresponsible gun owners are crazy people or criminals who'd use guns in a crime, like a mass shooting.

2. You can inconvenience responsible gun owners but you can't prevent them from owning or using their guns in a responsible manner. An inconvenience is taking a test, applying for a license, etc

3. Ignore the Second Amendment.


Your job is to come up with legislation that will keep irresponsible people away from guns without interfering with responsible gun ownership.
There is no way to require people pay for tests and licenses to exercise a right that will be Constitutional.

How do you define an "irresponsible" person?

All licensed gun dealers must now perform background checks before they sell any gun to anyone. Private sale laws vary by state and both federal and state laws on private sales are weak and impossible to enforce.

The fact of the matter is that we do not enforce the gun laws we already have so what good will more and more and more gun laws do?
 
you should wake up and read the 2nd amendment,,,

You are trying to claim that the Constitution is honored by the major political party????


You need to get out more.....you can't really be this stupid.


Let's take one example, just to put you in your place:

. Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors 2of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?


Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


This is the America of today.

 
I would proffer #2 and #3 are in direct conflict. Without the Second Amendment, its easy: use or possession of firearms is now a Class One Felony (or equivalent depending on jurisdiction).

With those:
*Mandatory annual background and Psych test. You have to have a License To Own.
*All firearm transfers have to go through the NCIS. Failure to do so is a Class One Felony. Data from this feeds into the NCIS and if it changes, your LTO is suspended and the police come and take yer gunz, followed by a hearing to determine if there is a LTO violation.
*If you die or you LTO is revoked firearms are confiscated as noted above. Post hearing, or death, those firearms may be given to the nearest LTO bearing relative or desired designee. If there are none, they go to me. :cheers2:
*All states are required to submit data in real time to the NCIS.
*Red flag laws in every state.
*Temporary mental commitment laws in every state.
*Suppressors permitted in every state.
*In states or fed where its not already so, use of a firearm in a crime will be an additional Class One Felony to be served consecutively to any other conviction.
None of these things prevent irresponsible people from accessing guns..
 

Forum List

Back
Top