9 13

My dream list of national gun laws.

  1. Ban sale of assault rifles to all except US military branches or qualified law enforcement agencies
  2. Fund buyback & decommissioning of assault rifles already in private hands
  3. All gun sales through registered dealers, no exceptions
  4. No sale without background check
  5. 15% maximum commission to dealer on consignment sales
  6. Two week waiting period on all gun sales
  7. Stiff penalty for straw buyers
  8. Raise age of legal purchase of long guns to 21
  9. Stiff penalty for possession of untraceable "ghost" gun
  10. Red flag law allowing seizure of guns from people who demonstrate danger to self or others
  11. All guns stored in a gun safe or locked with a cable through the barrel
  12. Open to suggestions
Flyingsaucesir 8 June 1

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Isn't it also time that you legislated to correct what has probably been happening since 1587.
Now you make it a trade & export it worldwide to infect other countries with your national illness.


How about legislating that USA start respecting not just American's rights but those of everyone else in the world and cease to invade other countries, have US agents foment insurrection, civil war, genocide. Cease to arm foreign terrorists to revolt against the democratically elected governments of foreign countries, pay for foreign mercenaries to invade other countries, commit genocide on behalf of foreign governments, promote fascism, racial & religious hatred?"

**Now that would be intelligent legislation not the stupid in place for a long time to harm world citizens. . . Stop listening to alienbeings!

There are probably 100 times more Russian/Soviet-made AK-47 assault rifles than American AR15s and M16s combined.

Go try your anti-meddlig rhetoric on the Georgians, the Chechnyans, the Syrians...

You make me laugh frayed Russian bear.

I'm not saying that the USA has not done reprehensible things. I have said it before and will say it again. We should never have gotten involved in Vietnam's civil war. We should never have invaded Iraq the second time. We should have gotten out of Afghanistan as soon as it was clear there was nothing more to do there vis-a-vis Al Qaeda. We should never have installed the Shah in Iran, or set up Banana republics in Central America, or any number of other idiotic things. And what was it all for? To enrich oil companies and other corporate interests. It's disgusting.

But two wrongs do not make a right. Russia is in the wrong in Ukraine, and she had better cut her losses and get out while the getting is good.


It's nice to dream.

Might as well go big, right?


You REALLY want to stop mass shooting? For every victim, burn a church. And make it clear which victim is being avenged.

Pretty draconian, dude.

@Flyingsaucesir Look at how the mass shootings take place in temples, mosques and Black churches. That is their war on everyone else; they have no respect for other people's places of worship. Until these massacres have a negative impact on them, they'll keep terrorizing everyone else. They approve of the fear that they (supposedly indirectly) impose on the rest of us. What's worth more, a White church or a child?

@racocn8 It will never fly, of course, but point well taken 😎👍


8 should be for all firearms not limited to long guns.
12 6 round magazine maximum for private owners.
13 owners subject to secure weapons validation without warning.

On 8 I was assuming the legal age for handguns is already 21. (That's how it is in California.) Where it is not already, make it so. ✔️

6-round magazine...make it 7 (standard in 1911 .45 acp) ✔️

13 would put us up against constitutional protections against illegal searches, invasions of privacy (not that anti-abortion laws aren't).


That's a nice list.

Unless and until the filibuster goes away, or the democrats get a veto-proof majority, I don't see it happening.

Fucking Steve Scalise was shot by a mass shooter and he STILL doesn't support effective gun control.
The republicans are not going to do anything remotely supportive. Even when they get shot themselves.

There you make a good (and, frankly, shocking) point. The mo fo actually got shot and he still votes against common sense gun laws? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!

@Flyingsaucesir That, my friend, is the state of the republican party.
Nothing of any substance will ever get done as long as they are permitted to obstruct.


How about...Serial numbers and ballistics provided by the gun manufacturers.

Only registered gun owners can purchase bullets for said gun with at least a three day waiting period, with limits set on amount per person per year.

Betty Level 8 June 1, 2022

Add ammunition and guns both must be locked up in separate safes.

Not sure how this would help. If you can get into one safe, you can probably get into two. And remember, these laws will have to be passed by Congress, so they will all have to pass a "reasonableness" test.

I have a gun safe bolted to the concrete foundation.. It weighs almost 400 pounds, I imagine it would take explosives to get in without the combination.. With that type of safe one would suffice.


I have a suggestion: Move to a country that already has strict gun control laws.

How am I expected to move if I'm dead?
Asking for a dead student.

Some day we're going to get this done in the USA.

@TheMiddleWay Have you seen Weekend at Bernie's?

Only a few more times

@TheMiddleWay If you actually care about children dying you should focus on economic sanctions. The state has starved hundreds of thousands (if not millions) with them.

@TheMiddleWay how many times are you going to edit that comment?

Solid idea.
What economic sanctions do you suggest and which politicians are spearheading it?

Because we can work on economic sanctions AND gun reduction and solve the problem quicker than just one or the other...

@TheMiddleWay I don't think our politicians should hold sway over our own economy, so I'd be in favor of abolishing all sanctions.

What will happen to 2nd amendment sanctuary states if they don't comply with new gun control regulations?

So you purpose sanctions as a solution...
... only to then want to abolish those sanctions.

A perfect example of conservative logic.

I suspect that those States will lose Federal funding for a start.

@TheMiddleWay I didn't purpose sanctions as a solution. I implied abolishing sanctions would save more children than regulating firearms. Le sigh.

@TheMiddleWay Withhold federal funding and they will stop paying federal taxes. This isn't much of a deterrent, imo.

Ah! My misread. Sorry.
Let me rephrase then:

What harmful economic sanctions do you suggest getting rid of and which politicians are spearheading it?

Because we can work on getting rid of harmful economic sanctions AND gun reduction and solve the problem quicker than just one or the other...

Sanctions are the start, not the end all.
Lots the government can do against hold out cities.

@TheMiddleWay I oppose all sanctions and the politicians who spearhead them. I have no desire to regulate firearms. In fact, I'd prefer to deregulate them.

Second amendment sanctuaries aren't just a few "hold out cities" []

Why don't leftists consider a less authoritarian way to solve this problem?

How far down the deregulation path do you go? Strictly speaking, the second amendment should allow me to own a nuclear weapon or use acid or poison as a weapon

I think it's a simple argument: we are an outlier in terms of gun ownership and mass shootings.
And as evidence that this is true causation not just correlation, countries that have implemented the same regulations being currently proposed have seen a decrease in mass shootings and no decrease in ability of its citizenry to defend itself.

@TheMiddleWay I'll consider any regulations if the state leads by example. Abolish standing armies and I might feel safe enough to relinquish my firearms.

@TheMiddleWay I could make the same correlation argument about the schools the shootings take place at. Why not ban public schools? They are more expensive and less effective anyway.

One of my kids is thinking about moving to the Netherlands, and taking half of my grandchildren with her (her kids). I am torn, I understand how she feels, but I also don't want to be separated from them. It's a damn hard call.

Really? That's the same to you? .

An institution is being brutalized by mass shootings and thus instead of taking away the tools that make mass shootings possible, you take away the institution where the mass shooting occurs.
That is not a logical position on this issue.


Abolish standing armies and I might feel safe enough to relinquish my firearms.

A false sense of security is all you have because there is nothing in a person's Arsenal that can stand to the US army, Air Force marines, or even Coast guard.

And the price for your false sense of security is yet another mass shooting yesterday. That's what, three in the last month? And how many times have we taken up arms against the government? The last time was a Confederacy and we both know how that turned out

@TheMiddleWay Mass shootings don't happen in private schools. My solution would eliminate school shootings, yours would only mitigate them. Your irrational fear of guns is clouding your judgement. You immediately dismiss a more effective and less authoritarian solution.

That being said, I don't believe you have an issue with school children being murdered. Did you advocate banning drones when Obama killed a bus full of kids? Maybe you believe killing kids is acceptable as long as the state is doing it.

Rice farmers in Vietnam did pretty good against the US military, as did the goat herders in the middle-east. How many times has the government took up arms against American citizens? Waco, Ruby Ridge, malheur national wildlife refuge, Yemen (am I forgetting any?)

While we're at it, I'd love to hear a less ambiguous solution to second amendment sanctuaries.


Mass shootings don't happen in private schools.

Mass shooting do happen in private schools
At a rate of about 10x less than public schools.
But private schools have about 10x less enrollment.
So there is no difference in private v public schools as far as mass shootings.

Hence your private v. public proposal won't work.

Since 2018 when that drone bus strike happened, has that been repeated over and over again?

When that happened, was there a change in drone strike policy to prevent this from happening again?

Since 2018, when the parkland florida high school shootings killed 17 students, has that been repeated over and over again?

Since 2018, has there been any change in gun policy to prevent this from happening again?

By your very example, the lack of bus drone strikes in the last 4 years due to change in drone regulations proves that gun regulations would have the same effect (not to mention that no country that has the gun regulations we want has the mass shootings we have)


Good list other than #2. That's shit. LOL.

The funding could come from selling the weapons (as long as they are in good condition) to the military.

Agreed. Not so much that it's a shit idea.. it's a good idea.. but it's wholly impractical given American attitude

@TheMiddleWay The whole idea of America having sensible gun laws is shit.

@TheMiddleWay I hope you are wrong about that. I mean, at the moment it appears that there are not the votes in Congress, but someday,...maybe

I'm unconcerned about where the money would come from vs wherever it comes from is public money. Tax payers should not, imo, now be saddled with the cost of paying for weapons bought by delusional, obsessional, maniacs. We will get these weapons away from them when they commit crimes (inevitable) so there's really no need to waste the money on them. It's sort of like being forced to pay for war after demonstrating against it.

@rainmanjr I hear you but I'm looking for ways to actually get legislation passed. Compromise is essential. And the military is going to buy those types of weapons anyway. So what's the difference? We get assault rifles out of private hands. The military spends the same amount of public money.

@Flyingsaucesir The lunatics get to flaunt their raised middle finger and get their money back. I would rather it cost them. Otherwise it's a pretty hollow win. That's my line but I'm a bitter dude.

@rainmanjr Dude! Calm down. Take a deep breath. We're all traumatized by recent events (and exhausted by not-so-recent ones). But we have to keep our heads. We have to be the adults in the room. We have to show an abundance of reason. We can't go painting with broad brushes. That just gives our political opponents the ammunition they need to shoot down any reasonable proposal. So we can't say that simply owning an assault rifle makes someone a lunatic. Breathe.

@Flyingsaucesir It's okay. Very few people pay any attention to me. I have my words and they have theirs. If they don't like my words then tough. I don't really believe they exist, anyway, so I'm pretty calm about it all. Trauma is for those who care (and that ain't me) but they are showing every sign of being lunatics. OCD lunatics. I know that type well.

@rainmanjr I pay attention to you homie.


They'll have to get used to such language because I'm not the only guy using words. Lewis sees himself as voicing the nation's conscience and he's using them. We've got their face in the dirt and we should grind our heel into it.

@rainmanjr I can only hope that this wrongheaded move by the Republicans to continue with the same old charade will translate into greater turnout of voters who want change.

I just got that. #2 being shit. That's hilarious.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:669320
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.