And then you can go out into the parking lot and sell that newly acquired gun to a criminal. The only way the law could possibly get you for that is if you admitted that you sold it to them knowing that they were prohibited from owning it.
Yada yada yada, more strawman. See why I don’t see how you have anything to contribute to the conversation anymore?
Tell me how I can prevent you from selling your gun to a criminal, and then having no consequence by either claiming that you didn’t know they were a criminal, or just claiming that someone must have “stolen” it, and then we can start working from there.
Otherwise, you are just advocating making it easier for criminals and the irresponsible to have guns.
You enforce it like any other law. I lost it? When? Where? You didn’t report the loss of a valuable item of personal property? You just sold it to a stranger? But didn’t he grow up in your hometown?
Everyone’s lies get them convicted.
But would you tell me what your solution is? You claim that you do not want to ban guns, that I am improperly accusing you of that. But what will solve the issue you are describing if not current law or just prohibiting everyone from buying guns…e.g. a gun ban.
You think Al Capone was able to get machine guns because they were legal? He peddled booze which was illegal. You think a law would have stopped him? That’s silly.
But you wouldn’t. You can make them illegal, but the criminals, who by definition don’t abide by the law, will be the only ones owning them.
It’s trite, but true. Have drug laws stopped the use of drugs? If not, then why would any law against guns, which each of them lasts for generations, be more successful?
They already exist. I own a gun manufactured in 1911 owned by my great-great grandfather. It fires the same as the day it came out of the box. I believe that there are 500 million guns in the US. Even if you wanted, how to you destroy all of them?
Yes, I would probably comply with the law and turn mine in. Would Adam Lanza or inner city criminals?
No, but when a criminal (“inner city” or otherwise) gets arrested with a gun - you destroy the gun. Since it’s no longer legal to sell guns, there’s going to be a massive reduction in the number of guns being manufactured, so while you’re removing guns from the environment, you’re not constantly adding more. Eventually, you get to the point where there are very few guns extant in the country, making it hard for anyone, criminals included, to get their hands on them. Sure, it’ll be hard, and take a long time, but it’s hardly impossible. We eliminated smallpox, and smallpox actively makes more of itself. We could absolutely get rid of the guns in this country if we had the will to do it.
I think we could do it in about half that time, maybe faster. It’ll get easier as more and more of the adult population is made up of people who didn’t grow up with the idea that guns are some sort of natural right.
But like you say, laws aren’t going to do anything to fix the problem, so what other solution is there?
Why would you want to repeal the 2nd Ad otherwise? Miller made it very clear that he wants to ban handguns. At least.
And this new San Jose law is the PERFECT example. On the surface it appears just saying you need to pay a modest tax and get liability insurance. But if you don’t comply we confiscate the guns. The kicker is that not only is that one special rider insurance not available, it is actually illegal under State Law. Which means that you can’t buy the insurance, which means this is a gun ban.
And it is the gun banning crowd, that is the cause of the uSA not having sane, reasonable gun laws: The current reactionary anti-gun control NRA came about because of gun banners.
Look at Heller. SCOTUS was forced to act to defend the 2nd Ad- which is you see all the "denied’ cases brought to them, you can tell they did not want to touch gun control. But three cities passed stupid and useless handgun/ gun bans- and the DC one went to SCOTUS.
All those bans were pointless, and even Chicago has said as much, since they constantly (and with some justification) have complained that state and local gun control guns laws don’t work as people buy them elsewhere and bring them in. So Chicago had to know that a city-wide handgun ban was useless- yet they passed it anyway. And SF? CA state has made it clear that only the state can pass gun control laws, yet they tried anyway.
Look at nationwide Gun Registration. True, Law Enforcement isn’t excited about the idea, as it really will only rarely be of help- and they have the federal gun forms anyway. But normal, everyday honest law abiding gun owners don;t want it, as they (justifiably) fear it will be used for Gun confiscation.
If people would stop trying to ban guns- which scares the normal, everyday honest law abiding gun owner- we could have some sane, useful gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
So, it is the gun banners who are the reason for all the “gun violence” in America.
Don’t be ridiculous . On this board I have openly proposed several. In general I am Okay with Bidens proposals. Plenty of room for reasonable laws, as long as the gun banners will shut up.
Yeah, people are saying that we are crazy that nobody wants to ban guns, but Heller was exactly about a gun ban. So was McDonald. And AR-15s? Ban them. Maybe you can be like Australia and keep an old rifle. We still have not heard what the “modest proposal” is.
Actually, I’ve only relatively recently arrived at my current position on guns, largely because of my frustrations with the pro-gun lobby, and gun owners in general. Up until 2016 or so, I thought Democrats should back off of gun control. I’d be a lot more moderate in my gun control views, if the pro gun side had shown just a little reasonableness over the subject.
UltraVires has maintained that gun control laws don’t work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And he’s a lawyer, so he should know about that sort of thing.