The best and most effective way to disrupt the illegal handgun market is to impose a nationwide limit of one handgun purchase per month, excepting the purchase of handgun collector sets. I know, the NRA and gun enthusiasts are now jumping out of their seats and screaming that such a restriction violates their Second Amendment rights. My response to such claims are: 1) the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” are legal; 2) common sense dictates that even if handguns do help individuals feel safe (they don’t actually create more safety), then why would anyone need to purchase more than one handgun per month (hunters certainly don’t use handguns to kill their prey); and 3) if we save lives, isn’t this what we should be doing? Even without records to track handgun purchases, the restriction to purchase one handgun at a time would create a major crimp in the “success” of the gun trafficking market.
We need to place restrictions (yes, there’s that evil word again) on the purchase of ammunition for handguns, the perishables in the gun business. We can restrict the purchase of ammunition to those who are licensed or eligible to purchase guns (as Connecticut has done). We can also impose a limit on the number of handgun bullets that can be purchased at any one time. And we can impose high taxes on ammunition. Such taxes could be used to implement effective violence-reduction strategies — strategies that are needed to supplement efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
A typical tissue of bullshit from the gun control freaks. Yes, hunters do use handguns to hunt. Carrying a handgun is legal, for example, as a backup to a rifle in many states, and perhaps the good professor hasn't heard of handgun hunting. The rest of his ideas are just as silly.
ReplyDeleteLets get back to the article, I know hard for you.
DeleteLimiting hand gun sales to one a month would have the effect the author highlights. It is one way to slow the illegal hand gun trade.
We'll do that right after you're limited to one comment a month.
DeleteHandguns to comments, now that's an intelligent comparison.
DeleteRights are rights.
DeleteGiven you have been proven to be a cowardly criminal liar by multiple people on this blog, you should be banned from commenting on this blog, but I'm sure the author and readers of this blog enjoy your lies so much, they want you to continue commenting to show what lying criminals you gun loons are.
DeleteGreat com back, proving once again you are nothing but a lying coward criminal. Thank you.
DeleteThat's the kind of response you get from Greg on a serious question about a serious issue. He is the site cowardly criminal liar, nothing else to expect.
DeleteGreg, I totally debunked that ridiculous rights-are-rights nonsense, don't you remember? When the nearly-divine founding fathers founded the nation there was a right for one human being to own another. Later that right was removed. It had no effect on the other rights. When the country grows up enough to eliminate the right to bear arms it also will have no effect on the other rights.
DeleteNo, you have debunked nothing. There never was a right to own slaves, no matter what people said. There is no right to own another human being, period. Rights are about individual choice, and slavery denies that choice.
DeleteBut how typical of your childish need to be controlled that you would call being disarmed growing up. Adults learn to make choices for themselves without the need to refer to Nanny.
There you go again, Greg, insisting that black isn't black, no pun intended. The fact is for the entire history of the human race there was a right for certain people to own other people. You can deny that all you want with your new definition of "rights," but we all know what a double-talker and deceiver you are when you try to defend your silly positions.
DeleteIn the days of slavery the law gave permission to beat and kill slaves, humans. It was not a crime to kill blacks, just because they were black. That's OK with Greg, this sites lying criminal coward.
DeleteThe law does not create rights, nor does it equal rights. People believed that they had the right to own slaves, but that was a false understanding of rights. Rights are about individual choice. Slavery, as one of the grossest violations of individual choice, is certainly not a right.
DeleteYour side insists on the notion that morality and rights are whatever the society says it is, but I take a higher view of such things.
"Slavery, as one of the grossest violations of individual choice, is certainly not a right."
DeleteI wasn't a violation of the choice of the slave owner. And it certainly was a "right" during the earlier centuries of our country in every sense of the word.
Besides, haven't you told us the Supreme Court defines what rights are? When the Court says things you like in Heller, for example, you're fine with it, but now all of a sudden you've got some other way of determining what a right is.
No, Mikeb, I have told you many times that courts and laws do not define our rights. We're born with them. The proper job of courts and the law is to defend our rights.
DeleteThe principle here regarding slavery is that no person has the right to enslave another. It doesn't matter what people said in the past. That was an injustice, no matter how unwitting
I realize that your size denies principles, other than control, but I am arguing from a consistant stand here.
Again with the rights aren't given by government crap. What a fool.
DeleteWhatever the government gives, the government can take away. I won't accept that way of seeing rights.
DeleteEveryone knows you don't follow the law. Now everyone knows you don't even know how rights and laws are made.
DeletePeople like Mr. Greene sure know how to aggravate fellow citizens with such nonsense. His proposal is nothing more than an attack on good citizens who simply want an effective strategy to defend themselves and their families from attackers. And last time I checked, everyone wants a way to defend themselves from attackers. What kind of buffoon thinks it is a good idea to impose heavy taxes on the ammunition that good citizens purchase? Why is it only the responsibility of good citizens who purchase ammunition to fund anti-violence policy?
ReplyDeleteIf Mr. Greene is afraid of his own shadow, that is one thing. But trying to hamstring everyone else who wants to be able to defend themselves and their families is an abomination. Mr. Greene should do us all a favor and get on the next boat or plane to another country and stay there.
-- TruthBeTold
Nothing in his proposals would prevent you from having the means to "protect your family," which as I said in another comment is total bullshit. You're not concerned about that. You're concerned about being told what you can and cannot do by the government. Like a rebellious 15-year-old, you can't stand authority.
DeleteNo, like a good American, he can't stand tyranny.
DeleteTyranny? HA HA HA HA HA HA
DeleteProving once again what a lying criminal coward you are.
Yeah, it's about tyranny, no, no, it's about protecting the women folk, no, no, it's about defending our rights because everyone knows if one right goes, they all go.
DeleteI think I'm enjoying Greg's humor more than anything. That's reason enough to keep him around.
Women have the ability to defend themselves, but yes, gun rights are about many things. I feel sorry for you that you can't handle complexity.
DeleteGood come back, Greg. You should leave it alone now, you lost this one.
DeleteMikeb, you always claim victory. That's true to the gun control freak form, since moving the goal posts is your key strategy.
DeleteOne victory I usually don't get with you is that of the last word. Go on, Greg, let's hear it.
DeleteVictory against this sites lying criminal coward is easy, he provides his own evidence against himself.
DeletePeople like Mr. Greene have no clue. Let's apply Mr. Greene's approach to reducing sexual assault: the best way to disrupt the illegal sex industry is to impose a nationwide limit of one sex partner per month. Common sense dictates that even if individuals want to have lots of sex, why would anyone need more than one sex partner per month? If this prevents even one sexual assault, isn't this what we should be doing? Even without records to track sex partners, the restriction of one sex partner per month would create a major crimp in the "success" of the illegal sex market.
ReplyDeleteAnd we need to place restrictions on the purchase of sex paraphernalia and pornography -- the perishables in the sex business. We can restrict the purchase of sex paraphernalia and pornography to those who are licensed. We can also impose a limit on the amount of sex paraphernalia and pornography that can be purchased at any one time. And we can impose high taxes on sex paraphernalia and pornography. Such taxes could be used to implement effective rape-reduction strategies -- strategies that are needed to supplement efforts to keep sex paraphernalia and pornography out of the hands of criminals.
Obviously Mr. Greene's approach would do nothing to decrease sexual assault. What it would do is piss off just about everyone. The same applies to Mr. Greene's approach to reducing criminal use of firearms. It will do nothing to reduce criminal use of firearms, not to mention criminal use of other weapons to attack good people. But it sure will piss off a ton of people who don't care about Mr. Greene's irrational fear of guns. All those people care about is being able to buy whatever they want and use it, if necessary, to defend themselves without interference from people like Mr. Greene or the government.
Mr. Greene is a putz for suggesting such a policy.
Just when I though Greg had come up with the most asinine comparison yet with his guns to comments nonsense, you come up with one even better, one gun a month compared to one sexual partner a month. Please give yourself a name and share some more of your genius ideas with us.
Delete