like ten shot magazine limits, its an arbitrary number that gun restrictionists came up with. I think it was based on how onerous they could get without paying a heavy price in a backlash
Baltimore has laws against more than one handgun per month. The Jacksonville shooter had two handguns that he had legally bought. It is already illegal to sell guns to people who aren't allowed to buy guns legally. How about just enforcing those laws instead of trying to restrict law-abiding citizens. There are so many handguns out of legal channels already. Do you think that silly law will stop gangbangers from getting to those guns? Of course it wont.
The reason is that historically speaking weapons confiscation leads to outright tyranny. To avoid this, avoid weapons confiscation. Note: I'm using a term of art definition for weapons confiscation. Preventing the acquisition of weapons counts under the term of art definition of confiscation I'm using here. Encumbering the acquisition of weapons, same. Before you ask: Why no registration then? Because, historically speaking, registration leads to confiscation.
a national law reducing handgun purchases to one-per-month, will have a trickle-down effect and limit the number of guns available to criminals. normal law-abiding gun owners will not be affected, they will simply have to limit their handgun purchases to 12 a year. big ****ing deal. but gun runners, who rely on a unlimited supply of handguns to fuel their criminal enterprise, will be hurt.
You and I clearly have very different understandings of what "HARM" actually means. especially if you think being limited to only being able to buy 12 handguns a year= a person suffering harm.
it will limit the availability of guns to gun-runners. and that will have a trickle-down effect upon criminals.
My question was how it would prevent a single murder. I can prevent shootings by giving away free poison.
It will not actually prevent any firearm-related deaths from occurring, however, thus making it a worthless proposal to consider.
Share with us all the names of the criminals that mass killed Americans. Not after they killed, but prior when they legally got weapons. Here, I am talking to a Democrat. Share the names of then proven criminals that later got a weapon and mass killed.
Except it will not actually accomplish such a goal. The state of California is proof of such, with how the majority of firearms found in the hands of criminals were originally sold in the state of California to begin with.
The founders wrote reams of justification describing in detail why it’s not OK for the government to infringe the individual right to keep and bear arms, leading up to the 2A. If the 2A did not exist, that justification would still be just as valid. I essence, were it not for the 2A, the mob rule you describe would be possible. That’s why we must remain vigilant in the defense of the 2A.
yeah your definition is if it doesn't bother you than it most certainly doesn't bother any one else not being a statist, I have no use for any restriction that limits the non harmful actions of free citizens-especially restrictions that are fraudulently proffered as solving non-existent problems.
If they can get the votes to limit purchases to one a month, they can limit purchases to one a year. Or decade. If SCOTUS can find one a month Constitutional, there is no limit to the limitation.
The prohibition on convicted felons possessing firearms is a national-level firearm-related restriction, but it is being routinely ignored and treated as it if does not exist. As are numerous other firearm-related restrictions which are established at the national level, apply evenly throughout the united states, but are still ignored by the public, the criminal element, and prosecutors alike. The defaulting to calls for national-level firearm-related restrictions is nothing more than an effort to ignore the failure of state-level restrictions that are easily and routinely violated and ignored by those that reside within the state itself, because the concept of such actually being done is simply inconceivable.