This is what the gun control law should be in the US.

It's not murder if you have an illegal gun. Turn them in or risk fate.

 

How so? How are deaths actually prevented from occurring under the proposed standard? What are the mechanics behind such? Can such actually be explained, in the same way an engineer can elaborate on how all the various pieces and systems of their design will work in physical terms?

 

They have to wait and see if they have their lisence. After that if it's illegal they are at the mercy of the police

Which is MORE then required to kill now

 

Such does not answer the question. How are deaths actually prevented from occurring under the proposed standard? How will such actually reduce the number of firearms successfully acquired by prohibited individuals?

 

Each and every proposal outlined change being armed from a right to a governmentaly revocable privilege. You don't have to jump through such hoops for any other right outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Would you require someone to endure such challenges to vote?

 

You can't kill anyone with the other rights

HqvH you seen the vote purging happening?

 

Spare me the self-serving rhetoric.

We have a right to bear arms, and that right is as important as any of the others. I'm alive today because I had a gun and knew how to use it. I have a right to life, thus I have a right to defend my life and a right to own the most effective means by which to conduct that defense.

 

Must suck living paranoid. Maybe moving to a safe county. I have never faced any sort of attack or break in and have moved about 9 times in 21 years.

 

The Russian system allows people to buy a gun designed for rubber bullets, and then if after a few years they prove to be responsible with that, they are allowed to buy a regular one.

Also, I don't see the reason why there would need to be all the restrictions on a single-shot rifle. Whatever restrictions you want to impose on other types doesn't need to be imposed on a single-shot rifle. The idea that you'd have to have all these restrictions on an ordinary single-shot rifle is just ridiculous. 15-year-olds used to go out into the woods on their own hunting with them.

 

That's probably an unnecessary legal requirement. Why not simply make basic safety training available for free?

That's a stupid and not well thought out idea. Do you even think about what you write? That's obviously not going to really do anything in most cases.

They already usually carry out a background check.
And why should there be a no prison time requirement? Again, you did not bother to really put much thought into this, did you? Not all types of crimes should disqualify someone.

You might have something with the consent of your spouse idea, but the recommendation from 3 strangers is another brain-dead idea. It seems a little arbitrary, and could be capricious if someone does not know a lot of friends, or lives in a certain area where most of the people hold certain types of views and might refuse to give a recommendation.

If you're going to start curtailing people's rights like that, there's no reason you might not start curtailing those rights even more. Seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to chip away at the concept of rights a little at a time.

Anyway, why not have a consent of your spouse requirement when it comes to abortion? I won't agree to that idea unless both get passed at the same time.
​

 

Isn't that already what they have?
What exactly are you proposing that's different?

 

I'd be okay if they made an exception for just the District of Columbia, a 40-mile radius around New York City, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, and maybe the county of Los Angeles and Miami. If they don't like how things are run in the rest of the country they could build a border wall around their cities with metal detectors at the entry points.

 

because, I want as many people as possible to just give up with trying to get their license. The less gun owners the better.

Its a safety measure to make sure the doctor has something to lose if they give the go ahead to their mentally unsound patient.

Because only law abiding persons should hold a gun.

If everyone in your jurisdiction hates guns and wants everyone unarmed then either move or deal with it, after all america is supposed to be all about local governance.
Eh the 2nd amendment and its cousin amendment number 3 are completely outdated.

I would love for all abortions to require the consent of the father unless rape. The recommendations are to force you to find people who trust you enough to be armed. It prevents people with say depression from getting a gun and then killing themselves.

 

No we have. Castle and SYG both of which allow for deadly force. In Canada if you kill someone in "self defense" your @$$ is grass unless it was provable life or death.

 

Thank you for being reasonable and agreeing that the courts should leave the cities and the 8 states that have anti gun populaces alone.

 

I said the cities, and areas surrounding those cities.

You have many situations such as Chicago holding the rest of the state of Illionois hostage, or New York City writing the rules for Upstate New York, as if all those people lived in densely populated urban conditions like them.

 

You are free to move to the underpopulated red states of Middle America CA,NY,IL,MN,MD,MA,WA, and OR are all solid blue/liberal. Want guns go to any of the other states that have a version of the 2A in their constitution.

 

"This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting. This is for fun."

 

You utterly fail to realize that the majority of US gun crime is committed by criminals that would ignore your planned harassment of legal owners.

 

Those states aren't "solid blue". Get outside the large urban liberal enclaves and you'll find a conservative, 2A supporting minority.

 

And after four pages another Anti-gunner admits the truth, it's not about safety, it's about banning guns.

End of discussion.

 

Such is an irrelevant and meaningless difference. It is not a legal exercising of the second amendment to commit murder.

 

Name a county that qualifies as being safe, that has sufficient room for anyone and everyone that may need to move there.

 

99% of all violent crimes happen in just 2% of counties.

 

true-run by anti gun democrats for the most part