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.
I fail to see how keeping a database list of gun owners is going to curb any violence with guns. The waste of taxpayer dollars will be spent on a database consisting mainly of people like myself who own firearms for the sole purpose of providing food for my family. If this database becomes reality, I will be put into the database if I buy a shotgun ONLY because the majority of folks, like me go into a store, go through all the redtape, show my ID and sign my life away. Do you honestly think criminals obtain their firearms in such fashion? If so, you are sadly mistaken. No database will be able to track those who buy firearms for violence.
As far as the population who wish to not own firearms....I'm from Montana. I own guns, my husband and all of my children own guns, my Mom and Dad, grandparents and extended family all own guns. This is the case for the majority of families here. I honestly do not know ANYONE that does not have a firearm of some sort in their home. God honest truth. The 84 year old widow two doors down has her daddy's shotgun and a rifle and she still goes out and gets her cow elk. To think she would be put into some bogus, useless database is idiotic.
Having someone's name in a database will go a long way in curbing gun violence for criminals. Criminals normally have their names in a database,...it's just not a gun-owner database.
The NRA has well lost its purpose. It is nothing than a fear mongering special interests group that serves as a the mouthpiece for the gun industry lobbyists. Our civil liberties are well protected and I support people's rights to carry guns as long as they are within context of civilian firearms.
However the NRA seems keen on being the largest group of moronic rabbling idiots known in this country. The only purpose is to protect the gun sales of the large gun businesses internationally or domestically and they do it perfectly by playing the chords to create propaganda eaten up by brain dead nitwits.
We need to take a mature stance about the gun issues in the USA, on where we sell weapons internatioanlly, our requirements for buying guns and their ammunition domestically and being able to have a database system of sorts that is effective in countering organized criminals who often use such weapons.
We have an issue but we refuse to address it, out of fear, paranoia and down right falsified propaganda. We need to free ourselves from the gun mentality that has enslaved us into a mindset of proliferation.
It's interesting how EFFECTIVE advertising propaganda is. 'The Socialist Kenyan is coming for your Glock' has really worked for the gun industry, even though Obama has totally avoided the gun issue. They pulled this old chestnut out for Clinton's term also and it worked like a charm for sales.
You gotta hand it to Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell, they really knew how to manipulate and create an atmosphere of paranoia.
May I remind the OP that our early rebellious fathers were armed as civilians with their own hand made weapons such as the Kentucky Long-Rifle that beat the pants off the Brown Bess the British used....the Kentucky Long-Rifle was the best weapon of its day made,owned by freedom loving Americans.
The NRA has well lost its purpose. It is nothing than a fear mongering special interests group that serves as a the mouthpiece for the gun industry lobbyists. Our civil liberties are well protected and I support people's rights to carry guns as long as they are within context of civilian firearms.
However the NRA seems keen on being the largest group of moronic rabbling idiots known in this country. The only purpose is to protect the gun sales of the large gun businesses internationally or domestically and they do it perfectly by playing the chords to create propaganda eaten up by brain dead nitwits.
We need to take a mature stance about the gun issues in the USA, on where we sell weapons internatioanlly, our requirements for buying guns and their ammunition domestically and being able to have a database system of sorts that is effective in countering organized criminals who often use such weapons.
We have an issue but we refuse to address it, out of fear, paranoia and down right falsified propaganda. We need to free ourselves from the gun mentality that has enslaved us into a mindset of proliferation.
Quote:
within context of civilian firearms.
Define that and maybe we can have a discussion.
As a firearms instructor I have to be a member of the NRA in order to maintain my credentials that allow me to teach state mandated firearms training. However, what I like most about the NRA is that they cause moonbats like the OP to constantly get in a foaming at the mouth tizzy.
I'm not a member of the NRA, I'm not some "FREEDOOOOOOOOM!" spewing dude, but I do own firearms.
I love how people still insist that Obama hasn't mentioned anything about firearms... well, he did once, in one of the debates- he wants to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban like we used to have. Nebulous term banning firearms with certain features just because they're perceived to be more deadly. So please, stop propagating that nonsense. Just because no motions have been made doesn't mean they won't be made.
I have no problem with the second amendment, but I find it odd that no discussion around the 2A seems to address the intent of the founding fathers, which had nothing to do with overthrowing "tyrannical governments" and everything to do with maintaining a well regulated militia. Why did we need to do that? Because they did not want us to have a standing army like we do today. So, since we've maintained a standing army since the mid 1800s, where does that put the 2A in terms of the founding father's intent and the way the 2A is interpreted today?
Let's see if we can have a real discussion on the subject instead of a bunch of "cold dead hands" rhetoric. I would seriously like to know, if the founding father's attitude about standing armies is now outdated, why is the 2A timeless?
(And before anyone gets their panties in a twist, having a rational discussion about the 2A isn't advocating its abolition)
Fine, there is a process for amending the Constitution. If you want to change it to reflect the changed attitude towards standing armies (which had started to change by the time of the war of 1812, and even before), fine. Go ahead and change the 2nd Amendment. Good luck w/ that. But until then it is still the law of the land.
Living in Montreal Canada with a metro population in excess of 3+Million people and carrying guns being basically illegal we just had our 33rd murder of the year last night,i wonder how much lower that figure would be if every one was allowed to carry guns?.
Fine, there is a process for amending the Constitution. If you want to change it to reflect the changed attitude towards standing armies (which had started to change by the time of the war of 1812, and even before), fine. Go ahead and change the 2nd Amendment. Good luck w/ that. But until then it is still the law of the land.
Who said I want to change it? I said I wanted to talk about it. Can't you read?
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.