So I’ve seen a lot on this argument and to preface this post I’ll say that I’m from southwest Missouri and I went to a school with 500 kids. I’m from the woods lol that being said I wanted to go down the list of things I do and don’t agree with from the pictured list.
1.) 14 day waiting period: no. Why? A 14 day waiting period does nothing but inconvenience the person buying it. If you implement what you want farther down the list, then this isn’t necessary.
2.) No sales by private owners: no. The only reason many people don’t want this is because the weapon can’t be traced. The reason I still say no is because the FBI has known about the weapons from the most recent school shootings. “The FBI admitted agents received a tip in January from someone who was close to Nikolas Cruz, giving information on his ‘gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts...” [time.com] This does nothing to protect anyone.
3.) No sales at gun shows: I’m not familiar with gun shows or why people are against them so I don’t have an answer for this one.
4.) 10rd magazines: no. But first thank you for calling it a magazine and not a clip. At least you’ve done research lol. I say no because if I owned an AR-15 I’d want more than 10rds to defend my home with. Same with a pistol. “Since 1990 there have been 22 shootings at elementary or secondary schools in which two or more people were killed.” [google.com]
It seems that even though the shooters have many rounds at it is at their disposal, their ability to use those rounds successfully aren’t that great.
5.) No bump stocks: can agree 10/10
6.) No cranks: don’t know what this is
7.) license for all arms: eh I’m on the fence. It sounds nice but at the same time, motor vehicles kill roughly as many as guns do and we have licenses for those. [cdc.gov]
8.) Child lock requirements: I’m not totally sure to what degree this is other than a safety or a gun locker. There’s really not much you can do besides watch the kid.
9.) Minimum age of 21: no. So the handgun age is 21 already. And yet, people under 21 still get them. Age requirements don’t really do much. Look at alcohol, tobacco and most things in general that have an age limit.
10.) Assault rifle ban: no. Okay so one of the crazy facts I don’t hear anyone bring up in the assault rifle debate is the cartridge size. The AR-15 shoots the 5.56mm round. Also known as, the . 223. I’ve hunted squirrels with a . 22. The only difference between these cartridges is the amount of gunpowder and . 003 inches of diameter. The style of rifle has nothing to do with the potency of the rifle. Does it look mean? Yes. Does it change how the gun fires? No.
11.) Universal Background Checks: if you mean crossing government databases for all the information on someone, then go ahead. I’m down but reference the point I made in section 2.
12.) Domestic Violence Ban: I would say yes but the evidence would have to pretty damning to qualify for the ban. I only say that because there are people who have cried wolf before and framed others for domestic violence. Again, I’m down but it would have to be irrefutable evidence. Wow, I hope you made it to the end of this lol. If you did, brownie points for you. Thanks for reading!
My problem is the complete hypocrasy on the part of the NRA and their supporters (not that the other side is completely without fault)
My very livelyhood is contigent on a vigourous defence of the First Amendment. So, the NRA lost me when they threw 1A under the bus under Columbine. If you biggest argument is that we need ALL guns to defend the Constitution, your arguments lose their impact when you start picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you are willing to defend.
But it goes even beyond this. Americans are so divided on this, that it is impossible (as can be seen above) to have a sensible, reasoned debate on this. Only the leftmost fringe is talking about a total ban on all guns. But the same people who wanted voter ID laws, and made comparisions to all of the other (non-Constitutional) reasons you have to show ID, are totally and vocally against showing ID for purchasing weapons, possibly the closest thing, rights-wise, to voting.
The problem with all these debates is that many people read statute law and when it agrees with their own prejudices or it seems to allow them to do something they want to do they seize on it and repeat it ad-nauseum. The fact is that laws are supposed to adapt through time to suit changing circumstances and public opinion. Case law and Supreme Courts exist to show how the laws should be interpreted in the real world.
For instance in the UK the most up to date statute law on knife carry states that I am allowed (without any good reason) to carry a "folding pocketknife" with a blade of 3-inches or less. However, these are vague terms and courts have interpreted this to mean that cut-throat razors are not a "pocketknife" and that the knife must be readily foldable by pressure on the blade and without the need to remove any locking device, so no lock-knives. There's nothing I can do to claim that locking knives aren't mentioned in the law so I can carry them because they are sub 3-inch and a folding pocketknife ... doesn't matter, I'd still be locked up.
Liberal propaganda. It's listed under opinion. Arms doesn't need to be defined in the bill of rights, it is defined in dictionaries. The supreme court has no right to negate the second amendment, it is bound by it. The rest is just so absurd it doesn't warrant response as the first two points I made here negate the rest of the opinions in this op-ed.