Here is a real gun control proposal that doesn't ban any guns (that aren't already)

Prove it.

 

Prove what? I asked you a question.
Why don't you understand that unnecessary and ineffective restrictions placed on the exercise of constitutionally protected rights vio0late the constitution?
Well?

 

Prove they are unnecessary and ineffective.

 

Nice unargued bald assertion.

Translation: "I have no real argument."

 

Is this an actual bill?

The only bill I see that might fit this is a recent one called S.1801 - Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act of 2021 introduced by Senator Leahy.

Is it this that you are referring to?

 

They had to do that before. You couldn't just assume some one had a gun under Giuliani you still had to have probable cause and they managed with out you tracing law. You stop a guy that has a gun check id and priors if he's got a felony conviction he goes back to jail and the gun goes away

Constitutionally you're required to prove the opposite.

 

Scroll up. Already proven.

 

You made the claim. YOU prove it.

Further, you will need to prove that honest people (>99.999% of gun owners) commit the most crime. They don't.

The OP's fantasy has already been implemented in some of the blue cities and states that have the highest gun crime rates.

 

You said
"It's far better than anything you've ever suggested."
This necessitates two things:
1: I -have- made a suggestion
2: You -have- read it.
Thus, your question, like your statement, is dishonest.

Kind and benevolent as I am, however, I shall give you the chance to redeem yourself.
- Cite / copy / paste any of the relevant suggestions I have made
- Demonstrate how his is better.
:

 

it shows the hypocracy of conservatives, who claim you have the right to own guns because of a poorly written amendment yet the right to vote can be regulated to no end despite having 4 amendments and showing up in the 14th as well.

 

Your statement, above, demonstrates your ignorance.
Conservatives know the 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms.

Your strawman aside...

"No amendment is unlimited"
- President Joe Biden

 

Pert much.

 

Poorly written? Complete BS. It was heavily debated to make sure people could own firearms. Your knowledge of Constitutional history sucks. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion that the 2nd Amendment was "poorly written", but nobody asked you.

 

LOL

So you are wanting me to prove you never made a suggestion on the topic. Is that what you're actually asking???

Lordy, gimme patience.

 

You:
"It's far better than anything you've ever suggested."
This necessitates two things:
1: I -have- made a suggestion
2: You -have- read it.
Thus:
For your statement to be true you have to have read one of more of my suggestions.
That being the case:
- Cite / copy / paste any of the relevant suggestions I have made
- Demonstrate how his is better.

We both know you can't.

 

I don't know where you get that they were forcussed on the individual right to own weapons if you look at the rough drafts of the 2A

V1

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

V2

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

V3

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

V4

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

V5

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Final Version

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
This renders your entire post meaningless..

 

So you want cops to know who simply owns guns by their tag? What could go wrong? Likely millions of gun owners rarely take their guns for a ride but cops will assume they are armed.

Just say no to tolitarian fantasies.

 

Then why did they put anything about the militia in there?

 

3 of them are literally about allowing religious people to be free from military service though the militia lol.

 

I'm sorry you do not like the fact The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home -- but there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Because that was the SUPREME reason for the right. The Founders listing ONE reason does not mean that they didn't contemplate other legitimate reasons.

In fact, they did, as their letters and quotes AMPLY demonstrate.

 

Which has nothing to do with "the individual right to own weapons".
Good of you to prove you cannot prove your claim.

 

At the time the founding fathers wrote the constitution the united states was a collection of independent states who agreed to give up a small amount of their power to the central government to help protect them from Europe.

So knowing that, the bill of rights was about protecting the states and the people from the federal government becoming tyranical. The preamble to the Bill of Rights states clearly it was only limits on the Federal government. Thus allowing the states to have the militia and prohibiting the federal government from preventing the people of the individual states from arming themselves for the defense of the state was important.

It was not about preventing states from banning guns.

 

You said
"It's far better than anything you've ever suggested."
You know you cannot prove this to be true.
Why do you make statements you know you cannot prove to be true?