?

Log in

No account? Create an account

[icon] My gun control proposal - Patti
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.
View:Website (pattib.org).

July 22nd, 2012

Security:
Subject:My gun control proposal
Time:02:16 am
1. Handguns must be registered and licensed to an individual, just like motor vehicles. Transfers of registration must be recorded immediately.
2. Handguns must always be stored locked, and the unlocking mechanism must be stored separately.
3. The registered owner of a handgun is responsible for any deaths or injuries that are caused by that gun.
4. There will be some reasonable mechanism for reporting the theft or destruction of a registered handgun.
5. If a gun that is registered to you is ever found unlocked, or in someone else's possession, there will be hell to pay.
6. If you're ever caught with an unregistered gun, there will be hell to pay.

Justification: I want handgun owners to be responsible for what is done with their weapons, and for them to have a really strong motivation to keep them safe.

I'm sure there are holes in my proposal, as it's more conceptual than complete.
comments: Leave a comment Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Comments:


jpmassar
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 05:13 pm (UTC)
It is legally different because the right to vote has been declared to be a "fundamental right" by the US Supreme Court, whereas the right to carry a gun has not (yet), despite the wording of the 2nd amendment and the lack of any mention of a right to vote in the Constitution.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 05:19 pm (UTC)
but the math doesn't change...this is a solution that if 100% successful offers almost no benefit (obviously except for the family and friends of those harmed). But at the same time will hamper the rights (fundamental or otherwise) of millions of Americans...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


jpmassar
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 05:59 pm (UTC)
No one's arguing with your math. You asked "How is this different?" and I tried to explain why it is in fact different from a legal point of view.

You yourself answered the question from a moral point of view:

loss of life is worse than loss of the right to vote

Or, in legal speak, restricting someone's rights so as to prevent a murder or killing is more acceptable constitutionally than restricting someone's right to vote to prevent others from fraudulent voting because the consequences are immeasurably worse in the former than the latter
even if the numbers are similar in absolute terms.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

[icon] My gun control proposal - Patti
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.
View:Website (pattib.org).