Require a license for EACH gun

[DontTreadOnMe]

And you have to renew that license EVERY year... $100.

Tax the gun nuts!

Next up.. ammo.
$.10 per bullet.

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[Chorophyll]

2. K&R.

[leeroysphitz]

3. I agree. We've largely stamped out smoking with this method. n/t

[former9thward]

21. Largely stamped out?

I don't know what outpost you live in but where I am at at least one half of adults I see smoke. The USDA estimates that a billion cigarettes are smoked a day.

[demosincebirth]

26. ...but we're talking guns, now...our manhood

[HooptieWagon]

4. I think each gun already needs to be registered.

But perhaps there should be a one gun at a time purchase limit, with a time span inbetween so authorities have time to review the person making the purchases.

The big problem here is that both sides have dug in on extreme, uncompromising, positions. Therefore, no productive and meaningful dialog can possibly take place... just a bunch of screaming, over the top, hyperbole.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. "I think each gun already needs to be registered."

Nope. The NRA claims registration is the first step at banning because the government will know where to get them.

[krispos42]

15. The number of guns has zilch to do with mass shootings

It has to do with trafficking... straw purchases, arming gangs, and generally moving guns to convicted criminals and children.

But the guy doing the mass shooting? Yeah, two, three guns maybe. Although he can do it with a single gun. Even a revolver... speedloaders and full-moon clips for wheelguns make reloading fast and easy, even if you're limited to 6 shots at a time.


We can worry all the time about the prototypical RW nut arming for the end of the world, but except in rare cases like David Koresh at Waco, when the prototypical RW nut goes off the deep end, it's with only two or three guns. How many can a person carry at once? They're a bit heavy, yanno. And bulky and awkward.


Some states have a one-gun-per-month limit. I don't object to a yearly limit of, say, 10 or twelve, because frankly if you're buying 10 or twelve guns a year you're either a collector, own a security company, or a gun dealer. But the one-a-month thing is a bit restrictive in my view.

[jeff47]

5. I like Chris Rock's suggestion:

Guns are cheap, easy to get.

Bullets cost $10,000 each.

You've got to REAAAAALY want to shoot someone to actually open fire.

[loli phabay]

11. yeah that will work, then that fridge full of venison cost you what 20,000

[calimary]

19. Indeed? That's actually not a bad idea!

Seriously.

I'm often amazed at how money motivates people NOT to do bad stuff sometimes. I know of so many people, friends and otherwise, who don't do something because of what it might cost, cash-money-wise. Not so much because it's wrong or immoral or unethical or rude or not-nice. Because it'll hurt you in the wallet. In some cases, maybe we don't have enough of that kind of motivation.

Just a fucking bewildering day.

[permatex]

20. And if we choose to reload our own?

It's very cheap and very simple.

[former9thward]

22. So only the very rich would be able to have weapons.

That sounds like something a rich person like Chris Rock would support.

[TheKentuckian]

6. What we need to do is open up any and all weapons that can be sold to non-NATO

countries to all law abiding citizens (including felons who have served out or completed probation/parole).

[Mojorabbit]

7. So only the wealthy will be able to own guns

It will be like the old feudal days.

[Peepsite]

8. Infringement

What does it mean?

[krispos42]

9. *sigh*

I'm sure the 15 or twenty people killed a day because of the War on Drugs will appreciate the revenues. Or something.

[Logical]

12. And this would prevent NONE of the nuts from killing people. NONE! You think this guy would...

have balked at spending more money?

So you think he would of said "Wow, I would really like to shoot a bunch of people but just can't afford the extra taxes on them bullets!"

Wow, are people clueless!

[elehhhhna]

16. would you mind empirically proving that "NONE" figure,

please?

[Logical]

18. So, you think MONEY was part of this idiots decision making process? LOL!

[elehhhhna]

23. check empirically in the dictionary

and get back to me

[Logical]

29. Take a critical thinking class, read the dictionary less. n-t

[calimary]

13. I'd add at least a couple of zeroes to the back of each of those figures.

Gun licenses should be as "easy" to get as the new voter IDs.

And I'd still be interested in that WELL-REGULATED militia thing. That's in the FUCKING GOD DAMN SACRED PRECIOUS Second Amendment, too.

Shit. Sorry to yell. I'm quite at frayed edges today. And this national madness doesn't help. I'm really sorry. I love you guys. As a matter of fact, I sincerely do love EVERYBODY I'm snapping at, today!

[ileus]

14. that would teach those gunner baser toters.

[4th law of robotics]

17. This will certainly make guns inaccessible to the poor

predominately minorities.

But hey, if they wanted to defend themselves they should have thought of that before being poor. Stupid proles.

[ananda]

24. An expensive license along with..

.. an extensive, lengthy background check and waiting period.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. What other rights are you in favor of taxing out of existence?

You must have loved poll taxes

[Marinedem]

27. No, no, no

You don't see the big picture.

If you don't set up exorbitant pole taxes for those stupid , poor, violent minorities to mirror the gun taxes, the the filthy little bastards will just vote to get rid of the taxes!

I say only the Military, Police, and 1%ers should have access to guns!!!!!!

[Serve The Servants]

28. Yay!!

I love the idea of only the wealthy and connected being armed.

[JeepJK556]

30. Yes an expensive license

So that the poor (who are more likely to live in high crime areas where a gun is more likely to be needed) can not afford a firearm for self-defense.

Because only the wealthy deserve the right to self-defense.