In a perfect world: The gun laws we would be debating? (Funny)

[Crosshair]

I've had this idea in my head for awhile. In a perfect pro-gun world, what kind of gun laws would we be debating? I'll set the tone and show what I'm talking about.

Some of us would argue for "reasonable and prudent" while others would argue that it is much easier to enforce with a specific caliber limit upon drivers.

We would be debating whether or not to ban the sale of 5,000 round cases of centerfire cartridges due to the number of back injuries from putting them into the shopping cart.

There would be a vigorous debate about which hunting sections would require suppressor use.

Debate would go on concerning if suppressors should be exempt from local and state sales tax, given that they are safety devices.

Strong lobbying would be taking place in Iowa to repeal the 50 cent recycling deposit on AR-15 magazines.

Any other ones you can think up?

 

[Technosavant]

We would be talking about whether a cyclic rate of over 600rds/min was just TOO fast for sensible shooting and economical ammo use.

Is the .50BMG not too big, but just too much fun?

 

[jonnyc]

Not really laws, but...

Should friends let friend buy _____________? (Insert your least favorite firearm here).

Always choose a Designated Shooter.

 

[ClayInTx]

In a perfect world there would be no laws to debate.

However:

Sign in a business:
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone carrying a Glock.

Swearing in a witness in court:
Please raise your gun and answer "I do so swear".
(of course in a perfect world there would be no need for a court)

 

[EdInk]

Is it morally right to sell/advertise pearl grips within 3 blocks of church or school?

 

[BPowderkeg]

in a perfect gun law America it would be like when at 15 y.o. i bought my first center fire rifle and ammo, handed over $30.00 to shop owner, he handed me my newly purchased items and were both happy, the only paper work was the three $10.00 bills.

 

[silentargus]

Every adult is required to own at least one practical defensive firearm. Nobody can decide with any finality what constitutes a practical defensive firearm, and fudds across the country grumble at being forced to buy handguns and rifles with detachable magazines.

Debates rage over whether or not people should need permits to not carry. The NRA spends a great deal of money lobbying against right-to-not-carry legislation.

Castle doctrine laws are expanded. New provisions require that every home contain an easily accessible gun whenever someone is present in the house, that a homeowner is required to stand their ground unless they have a reasonable fear of being overwhelmed, and that the act of committing a forcible crime of any type- regardless of the weapon used or whether or not a weapon is used at all- is to be grounds for use of lethal force.

There is an endless debate over whether children should be taught how to shoot in school. Advocates for home instruction contend that public schools do not necessarily know what shooting technique is best for each child, and that teachers forcing certain techniques on every child regardless of their parent's input is immoral. Fringe groups argue the merits of using pellet guns for teaching kids to shoot, and a crazy few advocate for .17HMR over the venerable .22LR.

Finally, there is some talk of California attempting to secede from the Union over being forced to allow its citizens to arm themselves. Massachusetts, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, and New Jersey rattle their proverbial sabers in support of California's position. Pundits have a good belly laugh and go back to debating the virtues of 9mm Luger as opposed to .45ACP.