Ahhhh, come on man, give me a little more credit than that. I know there were semi-auto's back then. When I said we didn't have weapons like these back then, I was referring to modernized M4 variants with 16" barrels or less and all of the other compact military style weapons with extremely high capacity magazines or drums.

I bet that Mini 14 was a huge step up from the flint lock you were issued in the military, wasn't it? ;)

You mentioned the attitude and maturity level has changed and that could be a factor. That's all the more reason for a co-signer. You mentioned training and testing. Just imagine how much it would cost to implement that. And what good would training do for someone wanting to go shoot up a school, be more efficient at it?

It's okay to disagree but I honestly think that having someone sign a document saying that the buyer of that weapon is believed to be of sound mind would make people really think before signing that paper for someone, even if they wern't exactly law abiding citizens. Sure, it wouldn't solve the problem totally but what if it stopped just ONE shooting from happening? Wouldn't it be worth it? It didn't infringe on anyones rights and it didn't cost a shit load in tax dollars to implement.

The gun is not the problem. I don't want to see anymore gun control laws being passed to where it's going to make it more complicated for me to make a purchase. I don't want to see military style weapons banned. I don't want to see high capacity mags banned. But if we don't at least try a little something to slow down the rate of mass shootings, then that is what is going to happen! Might as well put Bill Clinton back in office and let the banning begin.

But this was just an idea I had that I thought would possibly prevent a troubled teen from rushing out and making a big mistake. Thanks for your input.