Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #121
The problem with your solution is there is no litmus test to know who will take the life of someone before they do. At least allowing a State to License anyone who lives or comes into CA who wants to buy, posses or have in his or her custody and control a firearm, we can have a complete background check to determine the risk.
Of course a License is only the first step. A comprehensive law would require anyone who wants to sell a gun to record the license number of the buyer, and verify it has not been suspended or revoked. Failure to do so would cause the sellers license to be revoked. Anyone unlicensed who owned, possessed or had in his or her custody and control a gun would be subject to imprisonment and/or a fine.
A licensed gun owner doesn't address your concerns towards weapons proliferation. I have a license but that doesn't address how many weapons I can own. Perhaps you want registration of each weapon ... Which still doesn't stop crime ... And the only use the government could have with registration would be in conjunction with the possible desire to seize the weapons from law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens with a license and registered weapons will not stop criminals.
Furthermore ... The crime is what you hope to stop ... And crimes already have punishments. Anyone not legally approved to own a firearm now is already subject to a fine and/or imprisonment.
.
Weapons proliferation has many causes, fear is one. Notice above when each of the gun lovers echoed each other (more gun laws = more sales). If true, the terrorists in the NRA would love more gun laws. It's the fear factor which creates the need for more guns, more powerful guns, larger magazines and open carry desires.
This 'gun grabber' canard is another form of fear. I, for example, have no interest in looking under you bed to see what guns you have stored. Some do of course, but most of us respect the Second Amendment in theory, not in practice. Every effort, every debate on gun control, no matter how slight, is met with a sharp rebuke and the same counter argument, "It is my Constitutional Right". But, is that right not limited?
The First Amendment has limits in terms of speech (yelling fire in a crowd, defamation and perjury) of religion (human sacrifice) and the Fourth in terms of an exigent circumstance; the Sixth in terms of Gitmo, the Eighth in terms of Gitmo. Why not the Second?
Of course one needs a special license to own fully automatic weapons, isn't that an infringement? Does that not set the precedent? The Brady Bill was a good first step to bring sanity to the debate, but as is usually the case the GOP put their lust for power over the needs of The People, and did the bidding for the special interests and the money which follows.