Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Waiting time of 3-5 days to allow for background checks (and minimize purchases for suicide reasons).
Require training for purchase of any other than single shot firearms.
And I can think of a number of other positive gun control measures that would make sense. BTW, I own over 10 guns, as does my son. We understand this issue well.
Maybe that is infringement, maybe not. Most would argue those are reasonable rules. It will take thousands of words to define the regulations and all gun owners would be subject to inspection and confiscation at any time, then?
Waiting time of 3-5 days to allow for background checks (and minimize purchases for suicide reasons).
Require training for purchase of any other than single shot firearms.
And I can think of a number of other positive gun control measures that would make sense. BTW, I own over 10 guns, as does my son. We understand this issue well.
Replace must with may want to....
What the government CAN do is show liability for those that do not take due care in securing their weapons. If I have an unlocked shed with weapons an ammunition, I could be liable for damage caused due to not securing my weapons. It could focus on measures that are reasonable.
Every time a government prescribes a best practice as law, it prevents further best practice development. What if I don't have tigger locks and have large magazines, but keep them in security deposit box? I'd say that's secure.
Training is not a requirement. It is a best practice to own. You could make training a requirement of sellers of arms in order to demonstrate that they have sold weapons to people who either already know or have demonstrated the ability to understand their weapons. Failure to do this could remove the seller's license to sell firearms. Individuals only have the right to own, not sell. They have an unrestricted right to own.
My Mini 14 does EXACTLY the same thing as my AR-15. Same caliber, same rate of fire, same magazine capacity. It has wooden stocks, so it's known as a "varmint rifle". The AR-15 is BLACK so it is a "weapon of war". I just don't understand these people.
What the government CAN do is show liability for those that do not take due care in securing their weapons. If I have an unlocked shed with weapons an ammunition, I could be liable for damage caused due to not securing my weapons. It could focus on measures that are reasonable.
Every time a government prescribes a best practice as law, it prevents further best practice development. What if I don't have tigger locks and have large magazines, but keep them in security deposit box? I'd say that's secure.
Training is not a requirement. It is a best practice to own. You could make training a requirement of sellers of arms in order to demonstrate that they have sold weapons to people who either already know or have demonstrated the ability to understand their weapons. Failure to do this could remove the seller's license to sell firearms. Individuals only have the right to own, not sell. They have an unrestricted right to own.
Go the other way. Restrict the selling.
That is an interesting approach, which just may be something that would withstand a constitutional challenge. Let's expand discussion on this.
My Mini 14 does EXACTLY the same thing as my AR-15. Same caliber, same rate of fire, same magazine capacity. It has wooden stocks, so it's known as a "varmint rifle". The AR-15 is BLACK so it is a "weapon of war". I just don't understand these people.
That is an interesting approach, which just may be something that would withstand a constitutional challenge. Let's expand discussion on this.
I doubt it would work. Much in the same way that SCOTUS won't allow states to apply ambulatory surgery center medical and safety standard requirements to abortion clinics as they believe doing so restricts access to abortions, placing restrictions on gun sales would restrict Americans' access to their 2nd Amendment Rights.
What the government CAN do is show liability for those that do not take due care in securing their weapons. If I have an unlocked shed with weapons an ammunition, I could be liable for damage caused due to not securing my weapons. It could focus on measures that are reasonable.
Every time a government prescribes a best practice as law, it prevents further best practice development. What if I don't have tigger locks and have large magazines, but keep them in security deposit box? I'd say that's secure.
Training is not a requirement. It is a best practice to own. You could make training a requirement of sellers of arms in order to demonstrate that they have sold weapons to people who either already know or have demonstrated the ability to understand their weapons. Failure to do this could remove the seller's license to sell firearms. Individuals only have the right to own, not sell. They have an unrestricted right to own.
Go the other way. Restrict the selling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
[/b]
That is an interesting approach, which just may be something that would withstand a constitutional challenge. Let's expand discussion on this.
Infringement on the sale of arms is still an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
Location: Just East of the Southern Portion of the Western Part of PA
1,272 posts, read 3,706,370 times
Reputation: 1511
This is bigger than bumpstocks. This is essentially giving an alphabet organization (ATF) with no oversight permission to define what constitutes a "Rate Increasing Device". This is an open ended ticket to regulate magazine capacities, trigger accessories, pretty much as far as they want to take it. This should require an act of congress and it total BS.
Anybody with any knowledge of a semiautomatic weapon knows that you can bump fire them using only your belt loop, a stick, or even a stiff finger. Will the ATF ban belt loops next? Sticks? This is essentially a means for any future anti-gun administration to ban devices that are seen as "rate increasing". Executive orders restricting our Constitutional rights.
YOUR guns may not hurt anyone (may), but the laws that allow you to possess your guns means that there are limitless guns in the U.S. many of which will hurt and kill many people, so your privilege or right to have your “safe” guns means that many will die from others. Seems like a trade off you and many others are willing to make.
At this point is not about “if” we will have another school shooting, it’s about “when” and how many kids will die in the next one, and the ones after that. If there isn’t a national ban for all firearms, there is absolutely no hope that these mass shootings will stop. Things like arming teachers etc. are short term and short sighted bandages (and not good bandages) for this problem.
My proposal is the only one that will make any kind of long term difference, whether you like it or not.
No- there is a lot more that can be done to address what's going on. No need to strip everyone else's rights away.
I doubt it would work. Much in the same way that SCOTUS won't allow states to apply ambulatory surgery center medical and safety standard requirements to abortion clinics as they believe doing so restricts access to abortions, placing restrictions on gun sales would restrict Americans' access to their 2nd Amendment Rights.
There are existing restrictions right now that apply to gun stores. Expand them, and put the same conditions on gun shows.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so it is a "weapon of war". I just don't understand these people. 
These kooks gonna get ideas