Sharp as a Marble - How's this for a compromise?

<< Just bought a Wii | Home | Celery fisking >>

Gun Rights

Waiting periods for firearms purchases will be waived if the person purchasing the firearm has, on their possession, a firearm (unloaded, of course).

Because waiting periods are to "cool off". If you already own a gun (and simply having it on you means you have plenty of access to it) then there is no reason to make you wait for another.

Any takers on why this would be a bad / non workable idea?

posted @ 1/3/2008 2:03:41 PM

Comments

Boyd says:

on 1/3/2008 2:11:20 PM

Nice idea for those of us who already own guns, but what makes this idea unworkable are those situations where someone is in need of a gun right now. They arguably need that new gun more than we gunnies need ours.

mgroves says:

on 1/3/2008 2:16:46 PM

Yeah, because the whole "cooling off" thing is a stupid premise with no data that I know of to back it up. This idea is based on a stupid premise, therefore it is also stupid.

Gregory Morris says:

on 1/3/2008 3:47:57 PM

Response got too long.

Cap'n Bob says:

on 1/3/2008 5:39:23 PM

Not workable in California because it's an idea that contains logic - a concept that most California politicians cannot process.

Robb Allen says:

on 1/3/2008 6:43:09 PM

mgroves, yes I know. Hence why the "compromise". It still doesn't help those in immediate need which is why I truly think this law is stupid. I'm betting more people realize they might need a gun more than we have people who can fork over a few hundred while they're pissed so they can shoot someone.

SandH says:

on 1/3/2008 7:43:39 PM

First, I had to get past my knee-jerk reaction of screaming "HELL NO! I'm not going to compromise with those bastards!"

Now that I'm a bit calmer I think there may be some merit in the idea, but not for the reason proposed. A law amendment like this would weaken an unjust law that never should have been enacted to begin with. That's a good way to get rid of stupid laws - amend them out of existence with minor changes.

Robb Allen says:

on 1/3/2008 7:49:45 PM

Well, Sear, that's how they get in there in the first place.

Weer'd Beard says:

on 1/4/2008 7:30:26 AM

Easy because compromise is for US not THEM. They compromise by not banning all guns right now...

Michael Hawkins says:

on 1/4/2008 7:49:42 AM

It's a great idea, but waiting periods are completely pointless.

Personally I think the current three year waiting period before being allowed to move up from rifles to handguns is good enough.

me says:

on 1/4/2008 9:50:39 AM

Why does it need to be unloaded?

Robb Allen says:

on 1/4/2008 10:08:35 AM

Most gun stores ask that you not bring loaded weapons in. I think the general train of thought is that in gun stores, you handle a lot of firearms. It's one of the few, real reasons that actually have something to do with safety and not PSH.

However, if your store doesn't care, then by all means that's not a requirement.

Linoge says:

on 1/4/2008 11:49:12 AM

Apart from the entire concept of a "waiting period" being pointless, potentially lethally counter-productive, and a general waste of everyone's time, sure, it sounds like a good compromise... Until the anit-rights folks make it illegal for us law-abiding citizens to bring our firearms into a shop owned by someone else, or they start differentiating based on type (you need a rifle to buy a rifle without a waiting period), or some other cute little addition...

While I am far from a hardliner, history seems to prove that compromises invariably result in further damage to those who have something to lose... namely, us.

Robb Allen says:

on 1/4/2008 12:07:49 PM

Understood, but I seriously would love to see them have to debate this in public.

Molon Labe says:

on 1/4/2008 12:48:42 PM

If journalists concede to a waiting period and background check before being able to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, I'm all for it.

Robb Allen says:

on 1/4/2008 12:56:18 PM

Just so everyone's aware - I do not support waiting periods at all. This is more to just highlight how stupid the concept is.

Molon Labe says:

on 1/4/2008 1:04:27 PM

How about this....

Rookie football players need to wait 3 regular season games before being able to wear a helmet. You need a helmet to protect yourself, but history has shown that some players have lost their composure and have actually used their helmet as a weapon. Certainly the "possibility" of a player using their helmet as a weapon should trump their own need for protection, right?

Sorry, I just don't buy into any compromise which regulates WHEN I can exercise my inaleniable right.

How about THIS for a compromise: Upon applying for a 1st time firearm purchase, the State or Federal Government SHALL provide you with an armed body guard FREE OF CHARGE for the duration of your waiting period.

Not picking on you, Robb. Just trying to highlight the theoretical lunacy of waiting periods.

Robb Allen says:

on 1/4/2008 1:32:01 PM

Agreed ML.

Sharp as a Marble says:

on 1/11/2008 2:33:41 PM

Someone's been doing their homework on waiting periods

it comes in pints? says:

on 1/17/2008 10:30:37 AM

From Greg Morris (link found in the comments at Robb's place): Robb suggests a reasonable compromise. Basically, if you can prove you already have a gun, the mandatory waiting period would no longer apply, since apparently the "goal" of the...

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links