I was talking about gun control with a liberal-leaning friend of mine about how to keep guns from being sold illegally and he had an interesting idea.

3 months after purchasing a gun, you must present the gun to authorities to prove you still have it. This would also be done at 1 year as well. If you had sold the gun legally before either period ended, you would have t prove who you sold the gun to and they would have to present it.

What do you think? I personally found a few flaws:
1. If it's exactly 3 months out, they know you're coming. Make it random sometime between 1 and 3 months, and between 9 and 12.
2. This would take a lot of man-power to enforce.
3. What if they sold it after a year?

Anything else you can think of? I was just surprised he didn't want to ban them all-together (although he is a very live-and-let-live kind of guy).

I say that this is a bad idea, placing restrictions on law abiding citizens just because a few criminals make straw purchases!

Instead, as I always say, enforce the current guns laws! Hit the bad guy with the max. penalty for the crime!

quote:

Originally posted by Gravis86:
I was talking about gun control with a liberal-leaning friend of mine about how to keep guns from being sold illegally and he had an interesting idea.

3 months after purchasing a gun, you must present the gun to authorities to prove you still have it. This would also be done at 1 year as well. If you had sold the gun legally before either period ended, you would have t prove who you sold the gun to and they would have to present it.

What do you think? I personally found a few flaws:
1. If it's exactly 3 months out, they know you're coming. Make it random sometime between 1 and 3 months, and between 9 and 12.
2. This would take a lot of man-power to enforce.
3. What if they sold it after a year?

Anything else you can think of? I was just surprised he didn't want to ban them all-together (although he is a very live-and-let-live kind of guy).

Why not have people present that set of Ginsu knives at 3 and 6 months? Or that axe or hammer?

Why should you have to do anything to prove you are lawfully exercising any right? These are rights, not privledges, as your system would have it.

You are assuming guilt and requiring the law abiding citizen to prove innocence. Forget it.

Who pays for the extra cops?

quote:

I personally found a few flaws

ya think? The scheme requires registration or it doesn't happen: the peasant arrives at the court of the elite who check him off against a list, other wise it is a line of people that are just milling around saying "I've still got it, honest". So we begin there, right?

So apparently you and nancy think registration is just a keen idea, oh and your live and let live pal too b ut I think it has a couple of inherent drawbacks.

And just for fun, let's poll some of our buddies here, SF, and elsewhere to see how often they are going to be at the po-lice; Let's see Jan 11th I take in the King Cobra, Jan 31st I take in the Buckmark Micro, Feb. 11 I take in the 229 then I don't have to go for two months but then I have to take in the matched Colt SA's on the same day and then in... All for guns that were bought legally and comply with every law extant and which have not snuck out at night and shot anybody.

Yeah I think there might be a flaw or nine.

Maybe I should go see my State Police and have him inspect my baseball bat, my gasoline, my butter knives, my hammers, my screwdrivers, my saws, my wife's darning needles, her sewing needles, her frying pans, her steak knives.

Sure thing. Sounds like a brilliant idea you got there.

Dont forget your car, too.

quote:

Originally posted by Gravis86:
Interesting Idea For Gun-Control, What Do You Think?

In short... It sucks.

I do suggest that you be very cautious if your "liberal-leaning friend" asks you to join him for a glass of Kool-Aid.

Just move to California, Gravis. ALL firearm transfers must go through a dealer. Been that way since 1991.

And sell me your Kirkland home cheap!!!

If I pass the instant background check on the day I purchase a gun, that's more than enough. We jump through enough hoops in society as it is, I'm not a fan of constantly adding more and more laws - we've got plenty.

Dang, I thought this thread would be about all of us going to the range and shoot to practice our gun control!

CRIMINALS DON'T BUY GUNS LEGALLY!!!

Sorry but it had to be said.

It is asinine to impose these cumbersome requirements on law abiding citizens, when it will have zero impact on already illegal behavior.

I'm reminded of the Saturday Night Live skit about "Bad Idea" jeans.

"I know I should've worn protection, but I figured...hey! How many times are you gonna be in Haiti?"


It's none of the government's business what I own, what I buy, or what I sell. I shouldn't have to go get my rights reaffirmed every six months or year. I'm not presenting anything to anybody. I haven't broken any laws, so it's none of their damn business.

This is precisely why I have a hard time accepting any national candidate from certain areas of the country no matter what they state their views are. Some areas have such a warped sense of what's "right" and "fair" and "common sense" that they've forgotten what it means to be free. I've talked with sensible, relatively conservative people from New York or Illinois who say,"What do you mean your handguns aren't registered??? That's crazy!"

I say living where they are is crazy.

I say do away with all gun control laws. I don't want to "enforce the laws that are already on the books". I want to ELIMINATE the laws that are already on the books. That's my interesting idea.

This plan involves de facto registration. In every country that ever enacted gun registration the result has been taxation and/or confiscation.

Gun registration is specifically forbidden under current federal law (federal level only), and that is for a very good reason.

I refuse to trust any government that will not trust me with the means to defend myself, my family, and my home from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I refuse to debate any issue with individuals who know less than dick about the subject... yet insist on offering their educated opinion.

The idea buys the assumption that guns SHOULD be regulated, monitored, registered, etc. A supposedly "reasonable" restriction is the nose of the camel.

It might unconstitutionally restrict your ability to dispose of your property (5th Amendment). It may violate the 2d Amendment. It exposes you to liability if your purchaser does something hinkey with the gun.

Want any more reasons? Stop listening to such nonsense. If he starts again, put your fingers in your ears and sing the theme from "Gilligan's Island."

Originally Posted by Pepelep

quote:

I say do away with all gun control laws. I don't want to "enforce the laws that are already on the books". I want to ELIMINATE the laws that are already on the books. That's my interesting idea.

That is an interesting idea. In principle I'm good with the background check on crazies and felons but even that has been bastardized (no offense PsychoB} with the exension of both categories by the hoplohobes. Immediate examples are the nonsense being circulated about combat vets who have sought counselling for PTSD and eliminating people who have a felony gun charge against them with no associated crime, a wrong place, wrong time kind of thing.
So I'm open. Let's have a party.

P.S. Ordinarily I'd have a little guilt feeling about contributing to a thread drift, but our OP hasn't been back to opine, argue or agree, so I'm OK with it.

I'm not even good with background checks. A gun is personal property, just like a toaster or a screwdriver. No background checks for screwdrivers. And gun ownership actually gets extra constitutional protection.

quote:

Anything else you can think of?

Yup: What business is it of theirs in the first place?