A modest proposal....

[Carl N. Brown]

....not totally tongue in cheek.

I had reason to re-read Chapter 1 of Wright and Rossi "Under the Gun" 1983 and was struck by recalling that polls showed that support of more gun control is inverse to knowledge of existing gun control laws. People who know the existing laws are less likely to support more, but people who can't tell you what the existing laws are, are more likely to support "more gun control" with no specifics.

My proposal is that we should advocate a package of specific gun control measures, each a step less restrictive than existing laws. I suspect the majority of the public would support that. The anti-gunners would not be happy.

 

[gc70]

Hmmm ... how would that work?

"Dealers should do backgrounds checks on purchasers, not only when they buy a gun in their state of residence, but in any state in which they buy a gun."

Yep, eliminate that in-state malarkey and make it attractive to the general public at the same time.

 

[MOHunter]

An interesting concept, maybe we can walk em back!!!

 

[OilyPablo]

I like the sound of that.

 

[beatledog7]

That plan may have merit in a reverse psychology sort of way. But I'm a little confused how this statement fits your concept:

The anti-gunners would not be happy.

If antis generally are as uninformed about existing laws as the antis I encounter, then most antis fall into the general public category.

If you mean the few anti-gun activists that actually have a clue how current legislation works and what kinds of guns it restricts, then you're right--they'd have a conniption.

I suspect also that if pro-2A legislators tried to put such bills on the table, they'd quickly be attacked and labelled turncoat by the many gun owners who also don't know the existing laws and would see the effort as a step backward.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The general public (subject of the polls or surveys) is neither pro-gun or anti-gun but concerned about crime and are generally uninformed about existing gun laws: the people the news footage of blazing machineguns is aimed at when talking heads discuss semi-auto bans.

By antigunners I mean the politicians and the professional prohibitionist propagandists. Those anti-gunners would not be happy.

 

[freyasman]

Could you give an example? I think I understand what you're proposing but I would like more info.

 

[mcdonl]

All firearms dealers would need to submit a background check to the FBI prior to allowing the sale of any firearm at any dealership.

Seems pretty sound, and a little strict.

 

[Longhorn 76]

I think that is a smart idea. Most of the libs I have talked with seem to believe that it is leagal to buy a machine from your neighbor, or at the gun store with no problem. They are totally ignorant of the gun laws we have.

 

[Ryanxia]

How about:

"All current sales laws shall be replaced with a strict standing law that all dealers shall always preform a background check when a purchaser is purchasing a handgun." (Note it removes the requirement to check long guns.

"All magazines shall only be legal to hold as much ammunition as was originally designed by the manufacturer. 30 and 100 rounds in a magazine designed to only hold 10 will no longer be legal." (Not that you could fit them anyways, but might sound good to the average sheeple)

I don't know just some random thoughts.

 

[mcdonl]

How about:

"All current sales laws shall be replaced with a strict standing law that all dealers shall always preform a background check when a purchaser is purchasing a handgun." (Note it removes the requirement to check long guns.

They are idiots but not stupid. Given they are rapid about semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines I highly doubt we could slip this one by them

 

[morcey2]

How about enforcing a universal knowledge check? You're not allowed to talk about new gun laws until you can prove that you have at least some understanding of the existing laws. They want to apply it to the 2nd amendment, why not the 1st?

Matt

 

[Dean Weingarten]

It is a good idea, in that the crux is better education of the electorate. If we can do that, we win. They have been propagandized to believe a lot of things that are not so.

The major problem is that most of the media (main stream media, or MSM, or you can use "old media") is actively hostile to the Second Amendment and the Constitution. If we rely on them to get the word out, we lose.

If we can do this in the new media, we can win. THR is part of the new media, and it is part of how we are winning.

By "new media" I mean Fox, talk radio, the internet, and social media.