A 'gun control' proposal.

Alright, for those of you who wish to see greater regulation, how about this-

For the purchase of weapons which are not traditionally used for hunting, including but not limited to 'assault style' rifles/shotguns, and semi-auto handguns, we formulate an exhaustive approval process, which above all things, forces someone to sign off on the potential buyer, stating that said individual is competent to own such a weapon.

How do you feel about this? What would you add?

 

How about when the individual is NOT signed off on they go immediately to the appropriate institution. Those not signed off on because of mental illness get life in the mental institution, to remain in the mental institution until cured, not take your medicine cured, I mean actually cured. If released while not cured, and that is proven, and they kill, the releasing psychiatrists get immediate death by hanging in the public square. Those not signed off on because they are allied with demons get life in prison without the possibility of parole, along with all the State’s guilty murderous “liberals” who are responsible for States not being able to have religious instruction in public schools against demons and their allies. And if the person doing the signing off is found to have lied, it is an immediate life in prison without possibility of parole, if death results from the lie, it is immediate death by hanging in the public square.

First we need greater regulation of “liberals.” Don’t worry about the Constitution…

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those allied with demons]." (Clinton)

 

How about making sure the gun laws ON the Books are enforced.Because they
aren't.This government is just too doggone lazy to do their half.
Like Border Security looking the other way when Illegals are streaming in
unabated.Because it's democrat policy to make sure Illegals enter so as to be used for
a new democrat voting block.Like DuH.

 

Some states already have this and it is called 'may issue' where it has to be signed off by law enforcement. The problem is that whoever is in charge can be capricious in signoffs and you will find loads of complaints where sheriffs just won't sign off for anyone but the well connected.

Also, a more stringent process for handguns only puts the poor in the neighborhoods where they need self protection the most at a disadvantage.

 

Sounds fair to me.

 

Laws on the books would not have stopped this guy from giving into his demons, and using a backpack with a bladder full of gasoline or a homemade fantasy sword, or his mom’s 14ish legal guns.

He was against organized morality, which hasn’t existed since some black woman came into class and told my English teacher in front of all of us that she was forbidden to write a proverb on the blackboard.

 

We dont enforce our immigration laws...why are we even talking about laws designed to infringe upon our legal citizens?

 

Did I hear someone use as example Australia and even Switzerland as
good examples where gun laws are stringent.
In Switzerland the Populace is not just encouraged to own firearms but
in many cases instructed as if by law to have a firearm { some automatic }
and how to use.Even how to conceal and hide that firearm.The populace is
tested on how proficient they are at hiding their firearms.Because the Swiss
are a Neutral country and do not ally with any other Country when it comes
time to fight in Wars.I can't remember if it was Obama or not who used
Switzerland as a good example of a Country who has proper gun laws.

 

Good point.Under Obama there is an abject pride in Not Enforcing our Border and
actually providing bus tickets for Illegals to go to certain cities to go on Relief.
It's asinine.It's Unamerican.If it's Unamerican count on this Obama guy to
try and make it policy.Like Sanctuary cities.Like having genitals and private parts
groped at airports by his TSA thugs.Like Targetting and persecution of Conservative
and Christian Groups by his IRS.

 

All that will do will be to make it harder for law abiding people to buy guns. Criminals already aren't following laws to buy guns, this won't effect them at all.

 

Bad idea for too many reason to even list.

- - - Updated - - -

Bad idea for too many reasons to even list.

 

How The Media Inspires Mass Shooters

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/how-media-inspires-mass-shooters-copycats

 

Of course, these "proper" laws should apply to all 57 States.

 

I figured there'd be more support of this idea from the left leaning, and I'm not surprised by arguments from fellow conservatives, honestly I feel the same. I don't think the gun control crowd really wants compromise, it seems they want absolute control, want guns regulated into non-existence or civil war era small arms.

 

I'm for whatever they want for gun control, as long as the same standards are used for voter ID.

 

how about for those fearful of mass shooting to go out, buy a gun, learn to use it, and get a carry permit. That way when someone opens up in a crowd you can take cover and have a means to defend yourself instead of screaming like an idiot and taking a bullet to the skull because some terrorist nutcase wants to kill a bunch of christians who are minding there own business.

your other option is to hire an armed bodyguard but most people cant afford that. Unless your a politician. Then you can extort the taxpayer financially for your own personal security while making efforts to take away the rights US citizens to protect themselves and their families.

 

[video=youtube_share;bnoFKskvSq4]http://youtu.be/bnoFKskvSq4[/video]

 

How about no? Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say anything about hunting?

 

Yeah... I know, but I'm trying to see what it'll take to satisfy those who want more regulation. What I propose is pretty stringent, and clearly there'd be problems, but I think I could accept it, especially if it satisfied most of those who're calling for something to be done.

 

Total prohibition is the only thing that will satisfy them.

So why bother throwing them a bone at the expense of your own rights?

 

I suspect so.

In context of what I propose, I'm not really worried about my rights, or others who'd still be able to obtain any kind of arm they'd like. But there are some people who should not own weapons, and we've got to figure out what to do about that. OUR rights depend on that. If we don't find a way to keep guns out of the hands of these sociopaths, you and I are going to pay the price. Someday, likely through executive action, 2A rights are going to be minimalized to an absurd standard. The solution is compromise.

 

All gun laws are tyranny creep. I'd rather settle on a battle field than compromise liberty.

 

We have already compromised, and yet the gun prohibitionists do not stop. Nor will they.

No compromise.

 

What is your definition of "assault style weapons?" It is traditionally pretty common for people to use semi-auto guns for hunting, from .22 semi-auto pistols for rabbits and squirrels, to semi-auto shotguns for ducks, to hi-powered semi-auto rifles (e.g. Browning) for large game.

What exactly is the criteria that separates the hunting weapon from the "assault style" weapon that warrants the "exhaustive approval process?"

 

Fair question. The mini 14 is a perfect example of a 'sporting' rifle that with just a few alterations might as well be an AR. So yeah, grey areas and such. I'm speaking of stock weapons which are clearly not intended for hunting. Can you hunt with an AR or AK? Sure you can, just like you can kill someone with a single shot bolt action .22 rifle. We're talking about the scary black guns with all sorts of scary things attached to them, tactical shottys with short barrels, concealable semi-autos with high cap mags. These are the arms that have the gun control proponents in a tizzy. These are also weapons that I own and like. Though I feel pretty certain that in short time a blanket ban is coming, so it's in everyone's best interest to find some common ground.