What's the common sense gun law?

Politics
#1

Chris Mercer:

  • Legally owned all guns
  • Had no criminal history
  • Had no mental health alerts

What’s the common sense gun law we’re missing?

1 Like
He wants his country back
He wants his country back
#2

NO GUNS! :angry:

#3
#4
#5

Just horrifying.

“Violence is as American as apple pie.”

#6

But platitudes aren’t common sense gun laws.

So what are they?

1 Like
#7

Just a half-baked thought…but no fair taking single points out of the package.

  1. Tax the shit out of firearms. The more potential a firearm has for large-scale (or sniper) carnage, the higher the tax, progressively and exponentially

  2. Require liability insurance for every gun owner. (Not sure whether the premium would go up for more guns…probably would)

  3. Confiscate and melt all firearms without a valid tax receipt and insurance card, and jail the owners AND carriers

  4. Tax is decreased for every day the gun is verifiably stored in a personal gun locker. Tax is waived for every full day a gun is (verifiably signed into and) stored in the armory of “a well- organized militia.”

2 Likes
#8

Interesting.

As such a tax and insurance are regressive, are we going to provide subsidies to lower income people, so they may exercise their rights?

#9

This is not the time for LIB concerns such as regressive taxation. I would imagine a taxation loophole could be created for cases of extreme hardship, but after all it’s a Republic in which owning a firearm has always been easier for the affluent. Besides, just registering all the firearms will be a monumental bureaucratic nightmare in and of itself.

As to the cost of insurance…that’s traditionally not a government concern.

#10

Let’s be perfectly clear…most Americans, even those who wring their hands over gun violence, will see this accurately as a collective ceding of constitutional rights to the government.

Government is always a tradeoff between liberty and safety. You pay your money and you take your choice.

1 Like
#11

Rather simply, losers should not be allowed to have guns.

#12

Lower income people don’t get subsidies for car insurance. Why should they get subsidies for weapons?

1 Like
#13

Not me.

#14

Because the inalienable right to own a car is not mentioned in the Constitution. Our right to bear arms is.

#15

I don’t recall anything in the Constitution about taxes interfering with the inalienable right to own a gun in order to participate in a well-regulated (hmmm. regulated… taxed?) militia.

#16

I’m not sure why you are taking a sufficient reason to be a necessary reason. The Constitution is quite clear on the matter, any power denied or not explicitly provided to the Federal government falls to the states and the people. The Constitution gives the Federal government no authority in regulating arms.

Get over it.

#17

This phrase is, I believe, to be found in the Preamble but is not referenced nor repeated in the Constitution or its Amendments.

In any case, it seems silly to speak of an “inalienable” right to keep and bear arms, when the Amendment reserving the right is clearly a compound sentence wherein most of us agree that the right is (in some mysterious way) QUALIFIED by the need to have a militia.

#18

Everybody in the world reads it that way, except the gun fondlers, and their leg humpers.

#19

Again, I’m not sure why you are confusing a sufficient reason for a necessary one. The rule of grammar you are applying didn’t exist back then.

I rely on the writings of the Founders and those ratifying the Constitution to get the meaning.

But let me get this straight, you think the document which created the government based on a founding statement that governments are instituted among men to protect inalienable rights does not do that? What are you basing that on?

#20

What rule of grammar that you claim didn’t exist back then makes a compound sentence not a compound sentence?