A lawmaker in Indiana is trying to show off for party leadership, either in the state or at the national level. I mean, that’s the only reason I can think of for him proposing two pieces of legislation that aren’t going to go much of anywhere based on my understanding, nor would they do any good even if they did.

A state senator has filed two gun regulation bills ahead of Thursday’s Indiana General Assembly.

Sen. Mark Stoops (D-Bloomington) filed Senate Bill 307 and Senate Bill 309 on Monday with the goal of making Indiana a safer state, he said.

SB 307 would expand the requirement for background checks for the sale or trade of firearms between private parties. Under the proposal, selling or purchasing firearms would have to be done through a licensed Indiana firearms dealer and the dealer would be required to perform a NICS background check when conducting the transfer.

The proposal would also bar anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing a semi-automatic weapon and would ban the purchase of bump stocks and other devices meant to turn weapons into automatic firearms.

“These are common-sense regulations supported by a large majority of the public, including gun owners. This is not about limiting guns for hunters, or people who carry a weapon for self-protection. Senate Bill 307 is a gun safety measure that seeks to close the loopholes in Indiana law that allow people with a violent or unstable history easy access to guns,” he said.

Oh, my sweet and fluffy lord. There is so much stupid in this snippet that I worry about you good people losing IQ points. I apologize.

First, let’s talk about SB 307. Based on this description, especially arguing that two people trading firearms will need to conduct a NICS background check, it sure sounds invasive. More so than most universal background check proposals, I mean. Without seeing the actual text, I have a feeling we’re looking at a bill that will also require background checks for inheritance or even grandpa giving his grandson an old firearm he wants the kid to have.

Next, we get this idiocy of requiring people to be 21 to buy any gun.

Now, keep in mind that the government gives 18-year-olds actual assault rifles in the military, often with very little firearms training–contrary to what the Left may think, the military doesn’t spend thousands of hours training individual soldiers how to operate their weapon–and yet we can’t trust 18-year-olds with guns they’re paying for? Bear in mind that we give these same 18-year-olds the right to vote, an activity that has far more impact than most of them owning a gun.

Frankly, I seriously doubt any of these “21 to buy long gun” provisions will survive legal challenges indefinitely. If you’re considered a full-fledged citizen at 18, then you should be afforded the right to purchase a firearm at that age. I don’t see any constitutional reason to restrict this right at all.

But anti-gunners don’t care about rights. They don’t care about any of that. They want to have as many disarmed people as humanly possible.

And really, if a few people die because they can’t defend themselves, well…that’s a price they’re willing to pay.