Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Psych evaluations for anything more than your standard hunting equipment should be a given. Limits should be put on the amount of ammo you can own. Rules should be made on how the weapons are stored, with gun owners providing proof of proper storage. Written and practical tests should be administered before gun licenses of any kind are granted, with regular recertification required. All firearm transactions should be conducted at a licensed gun store or (if between individuals) at a government office - not at a gun show. There should be a national registry.
That's funny. You may claim to not be an anti gun nut, but they would not kick you out of one of their meetings.
Those requirements are Ludicrous, and no one 9s going to abide by them. Also no way to enforce them.
Tell me, How does Registration save a life? Can you answer that question? Bet you can't.
Mass shootings have tripled over the past 4 years. We now average more than one a day.
See all the bodies and injured just since 2013:
All the more reason to Arm yourself. Never know when some anti-gun nut may go off the deep end because they think too may people have guns, and start shooting them.
10 bullets in your home is more than enough to protect yourself. If you want to practice, you go to the range and purchase bullets there. Shoot off as many as you'd like, return any unused bullets to the range, then leave. It's not rocket science. That's how it's done everywhere else.
The NRA also can't seen to mind their own business and was instrumental in preventing a gun ban law in Brazil that was supported by 70% of residents in 2005. It would quite interesting to see where Brazil would be today if they hadn't intervened (and don't venture a guess on this unless you can back it up with data).
Good to see the NRA in action everywhere. Guns are their business. Why say they can't mind their own business. Seems its you that is guilty of that, since guns aren't your business. And who gives a crap about Brazil. This aint Brazil. And they would likely vote down any Gun Restrictions today, with Terrorism on the rise. Same as in America.
Terrorism is on the rise, and you can be in Danger even at home. Just as the Terrorists where loose in several Attacks, and running around Residential areas, your Home could be one they may choose to hide in, if such an event happened near you. Chances may be small, but your own life is not something to gamble on. Life Preservers in a Boat are rarely used, but its a good idea to have them. Its too late to wish for it when you need it.
Ignore the nonsense the Anti-gun folks try to preach. Their interest is to make sure that Criminals are the only ones with guns.
"I think there are three questions that those proposing gun laws should answer BEFORE they propose their "dream laws":
1. Will the proposed law actually prevent another "gun related"death?
2. Would the proposed law have prevented ANY of the previous gun-related deaths?
3. Would I be willing to post a bond equal to my entire net worth insuring that, when this law is passed, there will never be another incident of gun violence?
IMO, if the answer to any of the above questions is "NO", then your proposed law is useless!
If there is no doubt that the law will not or can not do what it is intended to do, why bother passing it?"
So, apparently there are those who think that asking those who propose laws to actually THINK about what the effects of their proposed laws will actually be is "unreasonable"!
"I still have yet to hear any reasonable proposals from the gun folks here."
1, 2, and 3 above are imminently "reasonable", IMO. THINK about what you are proposing!
Will it work in the United States of America? If you can't absolutely say YES, then don't propose it! If you are convinced it will work, then put your money where your mouth is!
Forget about whether or not it worked in any other country in the world, we do not live there, and we don't think like they do!
Your proposals aren't proposals, they're questions. BTW, your #3 question is ridiculous. You have still not come up with any reasonable proposals to help the situation, nor have any of your gun cronies here. And God forbid we might inconvenience the guy who wants to shoot in his own backyard! Like I said, no one wants to sacrifice ANYTHING....but yet, they have no counter-proposals. Wonder how they would feel if it were their loved one...I guess it would just be a case of the loved one should have been carrying a gun to fight back against that AK-47.
Forget about whether it worked in another country, we don't think like they do? Maybe we should START thinking like other countries, because obviously the way we're thinking ISN'T WORKING!!!!
This is what worries me when I hear some rural police department telling people with CC permits to carry and take action if the need arises. Most people I've seen at the range aren't very accurate even when they're in the controlled environment of a shooting range, I can't even imagine them in a chaotic scenario of a shoot out. I'll grant you, they may have nothing to lose, but I can definitely imagine more collateral casualties than someone who's trained for that kind of combat. Maybe part of the answer is to form a citizens brigade where they are trained to react in that situation, much better alternative than turning any person with a gun lose.
Perhaps so but let me just say, of those people you saw at the range who aren't very accurate, how much do you know about this or that range session to conclude that they aren't very accurate? Ie, have you only seen them once in practice or have you seen them in practice over 10 times?
Ie, after about a quarter of a century, I started wearing contacts again. When I went to the range and fired with them in, I was shocked of how inaccurate I was. I haven't worked out the reason for certain but I believe my method of shooting, with both eyes open where one eye sights while the other eye scans the background, is counter to the design of the lenses where one eye is distant and the other is near and the brain interprets to present perfect vision. It is still an issue I am trying to figure out what is what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwilliger
I'm pro gun. I use guns to hunt and for sport.
A national gun registry wouldn't have stopped this mass shooting, or the next one, or even the next one. However, with time, it MIGHT help. Enact one right now and require anyone who buys a gun from here on out to get it register before they can take it into their possession.
What a national registry does is at least lets the police, government, and the necessary parties know who owns guns when it pertains to their job.
...................................
If you are a responsible gun owner than there is no reason why a registry would hurt you as long as it is constructed in good faith.
Yes, criminals are going to find a way around this from time to time. There are millions of guns in America and there is zero way to get them all registered.
Gun control doesn't equal no guns.
Well, two things.
First of all, we have learned not to trust the government when it comes to registries, such as the machine gun registry. While it is legally true that one can buy a machine gun after certain procedures, one can only buy a machine gun that was built around 1986 or before. Why? Because during the Reagan administration, the registry was closed to permit no more machine guns entered.
It may not have been the original intention of the registry but that is what came about. Good faith is wonderful if we were talking about something like a God that once things were agreed on, would never be changed......but one must remember that the government, any government, is made of people and even if the people who made it do not change the agreement, there is nothing to say that the next won't.
Secondly, when it comes to cars, do keep in mind that as a nation, we do register them but we don't register them nationally. We register them locally and that provides a heap of money for each state. Of course, here we are talking about guns and not cars, but should it ever be in the argument that "it's just like registering cars", I suspect one will quickly find a lot of resistance from the states because of that tax money lost....even if it wasn't there in the first place.
Now, on another point, say the registry is flawless; will a person be able to have more than one gun at a time? The basic point is that one gun does not fit all missions. I love my H&K USP because it is the excellent replacement when one is without a rifle. Thing is, to conceal it, one needs to be wearing a field jacket. So I got the Kimber 1911. It's great and with its single stack, easier on my hands....but it's like a Formula 1 racing car in that it needs to be finely tuned to perform. So my gun merchant set me up with a Sig P239, which, so far, seems to work as needed. In fact, it will probably be my gun of choice to put in the ranch house's ready lockers because it shares the same caliber with the Uzi carbine. The Uzi, got to love it for it may be heavy, primitive in the night sights, a bulky (by modern polymer standards) beast, but despite where it is, it will still fire.
Etc, etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Funny, I just came across this article which depicts EEXACTLY what I was talking about in how Constitutional rights are treated differently!! They don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot now do they??!!?
First of all, that proposal has been around in "joke" version on the Net for months. Secondly, it falls into the old concept of "If I cannot make everyone equally happy, I will make everyone equally miserable."
So what's the filler purpose? To make everyone equally miserable? To strike up favoritism points with one component of the voter population? To show that they are incompetent? Or, once again, to try another way of out turning the 2nd amendment? Keep in mind, one big thing here, there is no amendment about abortion in the Bill of Rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
........10 bullets in your home is more than enough to protect yourself.
Says who? One of my training bouts is three magazines on multiple targets, covering multiple angles, going through magazine change outs, handling jams, training the mind to count rounds so when it comes time to change the magazine, there is a round in the barrel, ready (the system still loses on jam recovery), etc..
WHO SAYS TEN ROUNDS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO PROTECT YOURSELF?
Quote:
If you want to practice, you go to the range and purchase bullets there. Shoot off as many as you'd like, return any unused bullets to the range, then leave. It's not rocket science. That's how it's done everywhere else.
One of the things that the ammo shortage has forced me to do is to buy the range's ammo. It is a simple logistical issue for I know they will always have a supply.
Before the ammo shortage, years ago, however, I would shop around, find places to buy my ammo cheaper, cut down on my training costs. I could go into my range where I have a membership, shoot for an hour or two, pay my $2.00 for targets, and be done. These days, though, using their ammo, runs about $30 per pistol visit. Rifle ammo is too expensive to go that route so I supply my own.
There are at least three problems with closely controlled ammunition by the government. First of all, as illustrated above, it increases the financial burden on the individual for someone to practice. Secondly, should the government decide it is going to curtail the amount of available ammo for whatever reason, what recourse does the individual have? Finally, it could be very easily used as a way to circumvent the 2nd amendment by limiting the supplies, either directly or by making them so difficult to obtain through procedure that it is no longer worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G0DDESS
........It is FOUL that employees are required to pass periodic drug testing to work for McDonalds, but any closeted cokehead or psychopath can obtain a gun just as long as they have a clean record within the previous 5 years.
You tell ME how it is logical for McDonalds to have stricter policy determining who can serve fries than gun licensure does. There is no excuse.
Working at McDonalds is not a right under the Constitution; having arms is.
It is like the difference between prostitution and being in an adult film. Both can classify as selling sex for money but the latter is protected under the Constitution as Freedom of Speech; the former is not protected under the Constitution.
It may not be logical but that is the way the United States is arranged.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 12-05-2015 at 12:00 AM..
Forget about whether it worked in another country, we don't think like they do? Maybe we should START thinking like other countries, because obviously the way we're thinking ISN'T WORKING!!!!
Correcto.
The problem that most plaques the land (United States) is that we've been overtaken by liberals to such an extreme that we can not longer even call a spade a spade.
The problem that most plaques the land (United States) is that we've been overtaken by liberals to such an extreme that we can not longer even call a spade a spade.
I totally agree with you, except I would substitute the word "liberals" with "right-wingers".
The Constitution was written in a time that automatic guns weren't being tossed around to every assinine person. The Constitution was signed in the year 1787. No automatics even existed! Here were the original "arms" we had a right to bear: https://www.collegehillarsenal.com/s...87-Product.jpg
(Wow, what a wooden device of mass destruction.. so threating that pop gun is..)
This isn't 1787 anymore.
Different time all together.
The United States set this epidemic off not with the signing of the 2nd Amendment, but when it shut down the majority of its mental health facilities and dumped people with severe psychological problems on the street with no social support network to assist them. This in turn also stigmatized and made it much more difficult (not to mention expensive) for those needing psychiatric assistance to seek out proper treatment.
Guns don't kill people. However, deranged psychopaths in desperate need of medication kill lots or people though - seemingly on a daily basis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Wow, what a wooden device of mass destruction.. so threating that pop gun is..) 
