Replies

I agree, all one needs to do to see the effect of strict gun laws, is to look at Chicago.

I do believe in the need to restrict gun sales in certain cases (mainly just convicted felons). And background checks are really the only way to do that.

I think there is a better way to administer background checks. One that would make it possible to insure that a buyer at a gun show, or internet sale, has completed a background check, AND make it harder for the federal government to create a gun registry. Simply move the burden of acquiring the background check from the seller, to the buyer. If you want to buy a gun, you would go to a local law enforcement office, and acquire a certificate allowing you to legally purchase a gun. The certificate would be presented to the buyer at the time of purchase. And strict penalties could be imposed on sellers caught selling a gun to a buyer without a 'background cert'.

This would put more controls on the sale of guns, but the only government involved would be local, who are in my opinion much more trustworthy.

I’ve got a better idea. Allow everyone to “keep and bear arms” and blow holes in every punkass that presents himself. If the principle at Sandy Hook were alive today, I bet she’d agree.

That is, in effect what happens today when buying from a licensed dealer. Select your gun, pay for a federal/state check, wait for certification (which for me has only ever taken a few to several minutes), purchase your gun.

One other restriction should be applied - anyone wiht a known association with a criminal gang will be denied. I don’t expect this to reduce the number of gang deaths, but it might give law enforcement the handles they need to put a lot of feral punks in prison.