How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

I'm not sure he HAS anything else. He talks in generalities and unfamiliarity with the issue beyond what his "research" aka reading all the LW propaganda.

 

-How do my proposals apply to somebody who already has a gun?
-How do my proposals apply to somebody who buys a gun in Mexico and manages to smuggle it in?
-How do my proposals apply to a terrorist with a nuclear bomb?
...

To all those who can only think in binary and and can make up dumb questions like all the above AGAIN: my proposal is NOT intended to abolish death. It's to reduce the number of shootings by making them harder ("inconvenient", if you prefer) Making it harder means, not only that they might think twice about committing the crime, but also that the probability of them being caught increases as the complexity increases (as per Murphy's Law)

If you can think of a special scenario where they wouldn't help, then they don't. So what? If you had to sit there to come up with some scenario in which they WOULDN'T help, it's more than likely you will have first though of ten scenarios in which they DO work. That means A LOT of lives saved.

 

Read the OP.

 

wrong-the goal of your proposals is to harass lawful gun owners. we all know-and you have admitted-that is what your proposals will do. After that, it's pure speculation on your part as to why your schemes will deter people who are not deterred by death sentences or LWOP. the only thing we know your plans will do is harass those who follow the law. we reject your faith based claims as to them decreasing crime

 

in other words-NOTHING. nothing you cited shows any constitutional authority for your plans to harass lawful gun owners

 

No. I'm going for EVERYTHING described in the OP.

 

What are you specifically going for then?

 

Constitutional authority is in Article 1, Section 8 But it's not what this thread is about.

 

So, just more slogans, actions of little practical value, and LW slogans. Ok, at least we have a landscape defined.

 

most of which are unconstitutional (banning "assault weapons") and patently worthless (gun buy backs)

 

There is no such authority in article one, section eight.

 

what clause-nothing you have cited suggests that/ assault weapon bans are clearly unconstitutional

 

Article 1, Section says nothing about nullifying the Bill of Rights.

 

It's fiction-essentially a lie

 

We'll see what they can come up with.

 

That's a pretty broad, generalized non sequitur.

 

most of the stuff doesn't even pass the smell test.

 

Constitutional authority is in...uh...oh yeah, the constitution. Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

It's a pretty broad, generalized power.

Anyway... topic for a different thread... I will abstain from derailing my own thread.

 

Nor does any of the items offer any direct effect on shooting deaths.

 

If your thread is about a US gov't restriction on firearms, then the constitutional authority for such a restriction is germane.

Can you cite the language in the constitution that would permit banning guns without a single shot being fired?

 

that's the thing-to any objective observer-who actually understands criminals and guns-most of what he wants is completely worthless to decreasing crime. However, if the real goal is harassing and impeding lawful gun ownership-most of his proposals make sense. Using Occam's razor, we cut through the bullshit and conclude that the real goal is harassing lawful gun owners

 

I agree, we should do something. Like focus on the core reasons that the shootings are happening. None of which requires a single new law against or about guns.

And I don't know of a single Republican that say "do nothing". What they are saying is to stop focusing on inanimate objects and start focusing on the actual problems causing the shootings.

 

Golem, I don't care to engage with you. Your arguments are not honest. For instance in this post you pretend to not know what I am talking about when I say "core problems". Despite the fact that I know I have provided you with those core problems previously and suggestions on how to go about addressing them. So don't bother responding to me. I will not respond to you.

 

Trump ended a rule which assumed guilt and required innocence be proven. Imagine that, a President that wanted one of our nations motto's (innocent until proven guilty) to be followed.