Would you support these gun control proposals?

[Sestak]

These two gun control solutions are intended to keep guns out of unsafe hands without the government being able to decide who does and doesn't get access to guns:

1. Don't directly place many more additional regulations on guns. Instead, pass a law which states that gun vendors are liable for actions committed with their weapons. Essentially, if a store sells a gun, which is then used (within a small time window) by the person they sold it to to commit a shooting or other violent crime, they can be sued or forced to cease and desist, perhaps also with criminal charges on the proprietors of the store. The idea would be to force the stores to judge who can safely be given a gun.

2. Instead, go directly off of the text of the Second Amendment, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state". Allow groups of people to form their own militias, with membership structures. To buy a weapon, you just need to prove your membership of some militia, however, similarly to the first proposal, if someone uses a gun to commit a crime, the entire militia can be held responsible for their actions. Here, it is up to the entire militia to determine who can be trusted with firearms.

What do you guys think?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Neither. The first one is unfair and odd, if there are no restrictions on guns then the people selling them shouldn't be prosecuted. The second.... NOPENOPENOPE. Taking away the government's monopoly on the use of force is a horrible idea.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Neither. The first one is unfair and odd, if there are no restrictions on guns then the people selling them shouldn't be prosecuted. The second.... NOPENOPENOPE. Taking away the government's monopoly on the use of force is a horrible idea.

What monopoly on the use of force?

[Dr. MB]

Neither.

The first would be like suing an airplane manufacturer for a plane crash caused by a sleepy pilot.

The second just doesn't make sense. And is completely ridiculous.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Neither. The first one is unfair and odd, if there are no restrictions on guns then the people selling them shouldn't be prosecuted. The second.... NOPENOPENOPE. Taking away the government's monopoly on the use of force is a horrible idea.

What monopoly on the use of force?

Save for self-defence, the government is the only one that can legally use force.

[MAINEiac4434]

Neither, as neither fully reveals the second amendment.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

The first one is populistic nonsense
The other one is pure sh*t. Make gangs and Joe Arpaio-style people be the ones with all the guns. Or "militias" become little more than social clubs

[Mr. Smith]

The 2nd would be better than the first, but given how racially polarized this country is...there's too many ways it would go wrong.

The bullets, that is where things should go.

[Fight for Trump]

Both are stupid.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Abolish the Second Amendment, have a new Constitutional Convention to get rid of the garbage reactionary one of 1787 (not the Current Year folks, just for the record), etc.