The List of Suggestions (That Ain't Worth Squat)

So, now we get into "the plan"...or the suggestions that won't make a difference.  Let's begin:

1.  Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun.

I am unaware of any state that does not require this on all licensed gun dealers.   One cannot buy a gun at a gun show without a background check.   Some control freaks think they can somehow legislate that Frank can't sell his shotgun to brother Bob or best friend Phil without putting them through a background check.   The problems with this have been discussed many times over the years.  They include the obvious...that most criminals won't waste their time trying to buy a gun through licensed dealers...as well as the not so obvious.  An example would be that while there have been attempts by criminals thwarted by background checks, there have also been law-abiding citizens denied due to similarities in their names or personal info to criminals, much in the way some have ended up unjustly on "no fly" lists, making them subject to having their right to bear infringed.  Not good.

But again, I am unaware of any state or municipality in this country that does not have some form of background check in place. 

2.  Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults.

Are all "violent misdemeanors" and "domestic assaults" created equal?  A bar fight is a violent misdemeanor.  If feo's wife kicks his ass again, should she be denied? (I'm assuming he really does have a wife like he says he does...as doubtful as that sounds)  These are vague terms indeed and require specific definition, without which they'd never stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.  A fight of any kind...bar fight, smacking a spouse...does not equate to a murderous character, nor even that such a person totally lacks self-control.  It's an idiotic suggestion without more detail as to how it would be defined and administered.  It is a suggestion that simply seeks to ban firearms.

3.  Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
    stalking another person

This too is problematic from a Constitutional perspective, and also requires distinct defining.  It assumes all who are accused of "stalking" has murderous intent, or even any attempt to harm at all.  To be accused of stalking does not guarantee that the accuser isn't seeking to cause trouble for the accused.  That is, how do we guarantee that the accused is a true threat to the accuser?  Better would be to allow the accuser the right to carry a weapon for personal protection as the Constitution is supposed to guarantee. 

Most stalking laws consist of two main aspects:  threat of harm, emotional distress of the stalked.  But when laws that result in orders of protection, or restraining orders as they are often called, are not ignored by the accused, why should the accused be denied the ability to carry a weapon for personal protection?  The real problem comes from denying the stalked to arm up.

4.  Requiring all gun owners to possess a license for their firearm.

Licensing is simply a registry of people as opposed to their weapons.  Only three states require a license to own any kind of firearm, while New York has one for handguns only.  This is how a government knows who to fear should it choose to act against its people.  Just deal with every licensed gun owner first.   In the meantime, how does feo plan to license the criminal element for the weapons they carry?  This would have no effect on the criminal use of weapons, and indeed would increase it, as normally law-abiding citizens would be breaking the law if they don't acquire a license to own.

5.  Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys
    ammunition.

The same foolishness as checks for gun buyers.  It's a backdoor to further confound those that are law-abiding as if the criminal element will comply.  Stupidity at its finest, but no effect on gun crime.

6.  Banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic and automatic
    firearms.

This would result in the elimination of about 80% or more of the most popular weapons on the market for no rational reason.  Fully automatic weapons are next to impossible for the average person to buy regardless of their law-abiding record.  But as it happens, this ban was implemented for the same nonsensical reasons that feo types want to banish all other weapons.  There was NO legitimate argument for doing so, but as it was only one type of weapon, there was little resistance.  But at the time, there was not many instances of automatic weapons being used in crime, despite what the Roaring 20's gangster movies would suggest. 

Semi-auto weapons are nowhere near as cool as fully auto, but they are not so much more devastating as single action weapons, particularly in the hands of a practiced shooter.  Those who wish to ban semi-automatic weapons are those who don't know squat about them.  And if one is under threat by a criminal type, the ease of use of a semi-auto weapon is a life-saver.  This is a total infringement on the right to bear and will do little to reduce "gun violence". 

7.  Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider.

Already in place pretty much everywhere, if not absolutely so.

8.  Requiring all owners to report lost or stolen firearms.

The problem with this law should be obvious to normal people, but feo isn't one of them.  He likely hasn't considered the consequences beyond the superficial benefit he thinks exists, or ignores those consequences in his bid to ban firearms altogether.  The following fleshes out those problems:

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/06/02/problem-mandatory-reporting-missing-guns-laws/

It will solve nothing but feo's fear of law-abiding citizens.

9.  Banning the sale and ownership of all ammunition magazines with a
    capacity greater than 10 bullets.

This was covered in a video I posted in one of my previous posts dispelling feo's suggestions for the crap sandwiches they are.  I'll add a link later, but one needn't travel back to far in time to find it.  In short, it showed how little difference there was between using a 30 round magazine versus smaller sizes totaling the same amount of rounds.  It demonstrated both an expert and a novice firing off various sizes for comparison, dropping empty mags and replacing with loaded mags and the difference was insignificant even for the novice shooter.  It also staged a simulated attack by a potential victim who sought to subdue the shooter while changing mags.  Also failed to convince.  Magazine capacity is meaningless to one who seeks to do damage.  This law would have no effect on gun violence, but would make self-defense more difficult.

10.  Requiring that all firearms be recorded in a national registry.

Despotic governments LOVE this one.  Only a complete idiot would suggest such a plan and feo is just the complete idiot to do so.  What a buffoon!

That's all we have time for today, kids.  I'll pick up where I left off later, and feo will just have to bite it until I'm finished before he'll have a chance to prove he's unworthy of being allowed to comment here.  (He claims he's finished with me, but I doubt it.)