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.
Tell that to the residents of the most populous state in the country.
Hey, it's "just the facts."
I was referring to federal law. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Obviously some states have more expansive background check laws than the federal government has.
If my gun is stolen from my home, I need to be liable??? Someone broke into my home and stole my gun, and I need to be responsible for his criminal act???
If your gun was stolen from your home, you would immediately report it stolen. A police officer would come to your house and you would show him or her that a determined, skilled crook managed to break into your gun safe. After making this demonstration, you would officially be in the clear.
On the other hand, "well, uh, you know, just kinda kept it in that drawer there..." That'd be a different story.
A gun isn't intrinsically a weapon, it's a tool. There are many legitimate uses for firearms that have nothing to do with shooting people.
Hunting revolvers and target plinkers aside, I can't think of one handgun that isn't first and foremost a weapon. An AR is great for hogs, varmints, feral dogs, etc., but it is first and foremost a man killer just like the AK or the FAL are. It was born that way.
A large number of illegal guns are burglarized from private homes. This isn't going to be very popular, but legal gunowners should be held at least partially liable. Mandatory gun safes. (Even if it's just a modified bike lock bolted to concrete poured into an old tin washtub.) Your piece is either on your person, within 20 feet of you, or locked away. If you don't make a substantial effort to keep your gun secured, and it gets stolen and ends up being used in a crime, you can be held liable. Not like years in prison or anything, but maybe a big fat fine, confiscation of the rest of your guns, or be open to civil action.
Go after crooked gun sellers. They're out there. Redouble efforts to snag them and toss them into federal dungeons for a long time.
I'm not enthusiastically promoting these particular ideas (very mixed feelings), but neither do I think it's impossible to at least make a dent in the number of illegal guns floating around out there in the hands of violent felons.
Edited to Add: Just went through an old thread. It turns out the vast majority are due to crooked licensed dealers (as well as private sales) and that the ATF's hands are tied. Well, shoot. Untie their hands and throw those damned crooked dealers into the dungeon.
if I steal your car, and kill someone, should be liable?
we united their hands we got ruby ridge and Waco, they murdered over a 200 dollar tax they where not allowed to be law to pay...
Hunting revolvers and target plinkers aside, I can't think of one handgun that isn't first and foremost a weapon. An AR is great for hogs, varmints, feral dogs, etc., but it is first and foremost a man killer just like the AK or the FAL are. It was born that way.
Not until YOU point the gun at a person.
Go after the criminals and do your job to enforce the laws!!!
This statement was made by Obama back in 2008 before becoming president.
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen…. We can work together to enact common-sense laws … so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.”
Sounds nice - but how do you do that? How you keep guns away from criminals?
At a point in time, a criminal makes a first offense. Before that, he is a law abiding citizen. How do you take away the right for this person to own a gun when he hasn't done anything?
OK - now the person commits a crime. Is the criminal a felon? If yes- then that person is already banned from owning a firearm - unless a pardon is granted. If no - then there's a process required to be allowed to own a gun.
It's seems like the law is in place already for what Obama stated back then with reference to criminals. Why do we need more control?
Maybe we need to be tougher on the people when the crimes are committed instead of concerning ourselves with the guns.
Maybe we need to act more quickly with regards to the justice system instead of allowing a bunch of time to pass before the court case begins.
Maybe we need to find out how existing criminals get the guns and cut off that supply chain instead of insisting that free people who are not criminals give up our guns. Oh, I forgot - our government sells guns, don't they?
It's quite apparent that Obama talks a great talk, and walks a great...path of cow dung.
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.
