Thursday, December 25, 2014

Gun Regulation

Why not regulate guns like cars, I hear the libs say. Well sure, with registration by VIN number to a specific person so that when convertibles are outlawed, the cops will know who has a convertible. But wait, there's more.

Your gun, once registered to you, would be usable in every state and territory of the US, and not just by you, but by whomever you loan it to.

It may be carried in whatever manner the carrier chooses.

Etc, etc. But don't forget the Federal input to the design process.

All guns would have a glove around the grip, pistol or otherwise, with retention straps that must be cinched up before the gun can be used. Failure to do so will result in a flashing icon and an annoying beep until you fasten your wrist strap.

The fancier sorts of semiautos will have a small camera on the top looking backwards to warn you if your thumb is about to get hit by the slide. Hyundai guns won't shoot if your thumb is in the wrong place.

Should the gun find itself in a zero-G situation, an all-enclosing air bag will deploy to prevent accidental firing. Large-caliber guns will have an additional airbag on the top of the frame which will deploy if the gun rotates more than 90 degrees after firing.

Long guns will have a pressure switch in the back of the stock that won't allow the gun to fire unless the stock is firmly against your shoulder. Or something.

Automatic Stability Control: If the shooter should pull the trigger several times in quick succession, the gun will automatically limit the rate of fire to one shot every 2 seconds.

When you empty a magazine, a panel on the back side of the gun will light up showing a "check Mag" message and icon. Every 200 rounds, the icon will read "service gun soon".

It will be illegal to remove your silencer although some people will replace the factory one with a less efficient one.

The police will be exempt from all of this.


Unknown said...

Firstly, Merry Christmas to you and yours.

A peculiarity of fiction is it can be unbelievable yet true. If you think what you propose is too absurd, consider this; A story I'd heard of how women got the vote.

Apparently a Congresscritter attached a rider to a bill to kill the bill. H thought the rider to be so unfavorable that none of his fellow critters would pass the bill. The rider was to give the vote to women. Later, he said he did it as a big joke.

While we may view those in positions of authority as jokers we are to be reminded that they are in positions of authority.

I much prefer zero regulation beyond that of age of consent and no criminal convictions. That is no joke.

Merle said...

Now I'll just bet a gun like this would be EXPENSIVE and too smart for some users!!!


Anonymous said...

If the Billll of Rights said:

"Well regulated clinics, being necessary to the safety of women's health, the right to an abortion shall not be infringed"

would requiring abortion providers to perform surgical procedures at real hospitals where they have admitting privileges be an intolerable violation of a Woman's Right To Choose™? Or would it merely be a reasonable, moderate, common-sense safety regulation?

The Demokrat Party said...

But, but, but . . . abortion providers don't kill children. Gun owners do!

Anonymous said...

Democrats: We need to license gun-owners.

Gun Owners: OK, I got a license to carry my gun.

Democrats: We need to pass a law to make it a crime for someone with a license to carry a gun to actually carry a gun.

During the debate over gun-owner control in Colorado in 2013, a bill to eliminate legal concealed carry on college campuses was championed by its House sponsor, Rep. Claire Levy (Democrat-Boulder). During the debate Rep. Cheri Gerou (Republican-Evergreen) introduced an amendment for the state to keep statistics on the increase or reduction of violent crime as a result of the bill's potential passage. Rep. Levy responded by saying that

“I don’t know how on Earth they can draw a causal relationship. I make no assertion that this bill will either increase or reduce violent crime. That is not the premise of the bill.”

Video at

The premise of HB13-1226 was to codify the hatred that Democrats have for gun owners, by inconveniencing CCW permit holders as much as possible.

Even though Levy admitted that crime reduction was not the premise of her gun-owner control bill, it didn't stop the lying bitch and her fellow Brown Shirts from inserting the standard "safety clause" at its end:

"SECTION 4. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety."

Billll said...

Perhaps if when a 20-year-old thug waves a weapon of whatever sort at a citizen, official or private, and gets terminally ventilated, we refer to this as a "63rd trimester abortion", the liberals will quiet their complaining.

Anonymous said...

When testifying before congress in favor of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, Attorney General Homer Cummings said that

“Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it, but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to comply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want them to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.”

and that

”I have no fear of the law-abiding citizen getting into trouble.”

In 1968, the United States Supreme Court ruled that criminals do not have to comply with the gun registration requirements of the NFA (Haynes vs United States), because registering an illegally-owned gun would be a violation of the criminal’s 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Later courts have not extended, and have explicitly denied, that same 5th Amendment protection to law-abiding citizens. For example:

“The City of New York's Gun Control Law is not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities. It is regulatory in nature.”
Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525, 289 N.Y.S.2d 358, 364 (1968)

Bottom line: It is unconstitutional punish criminals for failing to register guns, but perfectly OK to prosecute the law-abiding.

See the short article, “The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration” by Clayton Cramer for the absurd details, at