For the sake of argument; Good gun control laws.

[The_Antibubba]

If he's gullible enough to believe gun control will lessen crime...

Here's a few:

1. A civilian ban on undetectable, all-plastic guns.

2. A total ban on Depleted Uranium bullets.

3. No more liquid Teflon dipped handgun bullets that go through body armor like it wasn't there.

4. Using bullets made of ice that melt before being examined will be a separate felony.

And so on. Let the guy try to ban every urban legend-after all, it isn't about "doing something" about crime.


It's about looking like you're "doing something" about crime.

 

[DevilDog]

The only good laws concerning guns are those that increase penalties and have mandatory time (no parole/probation) for repeat offenders.

I belive the NFA laws concerning illegally converting a full auto or using one in a crime include mandatory federal time. When one considers how easy many firearms are to convert to full auto, yet this is rarely done so, at least by those who commit crimes with firearms, there must be a reason.

IMHO, the reason we don't see illegally converted full autos used in many crimes is because of the potential for additional prison time. Why convert a firearm to full auto to rob a gas station if a non-FA firearme will do?

If this is the reason, then here is my "sensible" gun law:

When a convicted felon commits a crime with a firearm, he will do an additional year of time for every round of ammunition he could load into that firearm, to include speedloaders and magazines.

So a criminal using a firearm and has two 30 round mags on him, would do 61 additional years. Note that he would not have to have the ammo on him, the "potential" load is what determines the punishment.

I think we would see one shot zip guns becoming even more popular with criminals.

The "convicted felon" requirement is intended to purposely target repeat offenders, which really are our big crime problem, and it protects your average Joe from getting undue punishment during a domestic dispute or an odd traffic incident where he happened to have a gun in the car.

 

[PigPen]

I would simply make the point that restrictions on firearms ownership have already reached the point of ridiculousness. We have no further room to negotiate. Our backs are to the wall. It isn't going to change anything anyway.

Perhaps I should have just kept clicking and said nothing but it's long past the time where negotiation with the Democrate gungrabbers is an option. It only encourages them to want more restrictions and besides that, I have nothing left to give........My back is to the sea!

PigPen

 

[MeekandMild]

"those of bad repute"

I don't think a 21st century American wants to go there. Reading contemporary documents that list would include beggers, vagabonds, the parasite class in general.

 

[Art Eatman]

M&M, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers were written in language like that. In the context of that particular discussion, I cannot help but read it as meaning those whom today we would call "felons".

Odds are, though, at the time of that writing, it probably included those known for violence in the local tavern.

At any rate, the reason I've brought that up from time to time in these discussions about the 2nd A is that some folks here don't realize that those who wrote it and the other parts of the BOR did not see these rights as having no limits.

Art

 

[MeekandMild]

Thanks for the reply, Art. I have the feeling you are right about the tavern issue. Considering that the entire US had less people than Georgia has now, it would have been a lot easier for the high sheriff to know everybody in the county.


But back to the original post. I have a serious question here.

This is compromise legislation

Why do compromises always have to be compromises to reduce MY (speaking metaphorically as a common citizen) rights? The lefties always want steal a dollar more in taxes but will settle for fifty cents, to build 100 low income apartments next door but will settle for fifty, to condemn ten acres of my land as wetland but will settle for 8 if I agree to file a permit to fill, to give me ten years in jail for picking up a hawk feather off the side of the road but will settle for five, to limit my pistol magazines to five shots but will settle for ten.

I want things to go in the other direction and to start having compromises in terms how much Federal power and 'taking' ability we're going to perminently removed each year. To me that seems most reasonable and moderate. Maybe start with something innocuous like the toilet, feather and fill dirt police and work up to bigger stuff.