Merely preliminary “common sense” steps towards the desired “common sense” confiscation.
Hell no.
“Give them nothing, but take from them, everything.”
-Leonidas
~W
Interesting how he goes into a detailed description of what semi-auto and possession means. But no clue on what “thorough and reasonable” is.
How about we just don’t infringe?
Moronic idea worthy of Chuck Schumer. You don’t need a license to exercise a right. If you need a license it isn’t a right. It’s a privilege. And privileges can be revoked at any time for any reason or no reason at all. This dude can go suck on a cholla branch.
Gun control that “works” to do what? You need a federal license to exercise a Constitutional right? I’m sorry, but no sale.
>>Oh, and about the requirement for that federal license . . .
>>Yeah, we’re going to fight over that. A lot, probably. But that fight would be way more reality-centered and sane than our current fights over pistol grips and barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks.
Let’s just called everyone who currently owns a semi-auto a DREAMER and give them a free license, no questions asked,....and throw in a new AR-15 and 10,000 rds of ammo too..because, ya know, DREAMER!
But then of course if you don’t want to comply such as Chicago gangs how do words written down on paper make people physically comply? Talk to women who’ve survived attacks by their ex bf/husbands under a court order to stay away from them; words are just words.
The second amendment is a preexistence right. Lets license politicians and criminals first and see if that works.
I have a proposal for you, John.
How about you f*ck off and die.
All this is predicated on the belief that gun control advocates aren’t liars who’ll backstab and confiscate/ban guns or otherwise misuse or break the law.
Jon Stokes’ gun control idea has all the value of used toilet paper.
Oh, I see. Just following the way the 2nd amendment is written. It’s a sub paragraph located right next to where it says abortion on demand is a right. My take-——uh, NO!
--see-I did read the articles---
NOPE
Sounds like one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Where does fundamental right fit in. It doesn’t.
“2) “Possession” is a legal concept from the drug war that implies that a person has a contraband item “on or about one’s person,” or has “control” over the item, perhaps by having it in a motor vehicle or in a home.
Because both of these things—“possession” and “semi-automatic weapons”—are easy to define, they’re easy to regulate.”
I can’t believe this buffoon actually cites the “drug war” to promote his licensing scheme (which is the worst camel nose to ever get under a tent; why would we barter away our rights in exchange for not infringing our rights?).
Earth to Idiot: the “drug war” is a comprehensive failure. The US is awash with meth, synthetic and natural marijuana, “bath salts”, etc., 116 people are DYING every day from opioid abuse, billions of dollars are sent out of the country, millions of Americans are unemployable bums due to drugs and others criminals who deal in forbidden goods, precisely because bans make them valuable. The “gun violence” in America is fueled by drug trafficking gangs, and addicts committing robbery, identity fraud, etc. to get money for dope.
Does he think that criminal gangs wouldn’t move into any niche where “banned” or restricted licensed possession creates a demand?
.
>> “Gun Control That Works” <<
Target Practice!
.