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.
BTW the loophole is, unless your parents or legal guardian gifted you the weapon...
In which case the parents would be assuming responsibility for a young adults actions.
Quick question for all you mom's demanding action.
Are you OK with being responsible for your kids actions until they're 21?
I say if we're going to infringe on the rights of all 18-21 to be really fair, no more eligibility for private loans for college until 21.
No eligibility for military service until 21.
No voting rights until 21.
And you assume financial, and criminal responsibility on your kid until they're 21.
Be very careful for what tone you seek to establish regarding the 2nd, it is a civil right to keep and bear arms. We can apply your nonsensical laws elsewhere in the constitution.
BTW the loophole is, unless your parents or legal guardian gifted you the weapon...
In which case the parents would be assuming responsibility for a young adults actions.
Quick question for all you mom's demanding action.
Are you OK with being responsible for your kids actions until they're 21?
I say if we're going to infringe on the rights of all 18-21 to be really fair, no more eligibility for private loans for college until 21.
No eligibility for military service until 21.
No voting rights until 21.
And you assume financial, and criminal responsibility on your kid until they're 21.
Be very careful for what tone you seek to establish regarding the 2nd, it is a civil right to keep and bear arms. We can apply your nonsensical laws elsewhere in the constitution.
No one wants to take your guns away....but there needs to be restrictions in this day and age. And why do you think it's just mom's who want this?
No one wants to take your guns away....but there needs to be restrictions in this day and age. And why do you think it's just mom's who want this?
We keep hearing that drivel but actions speak louder than words. If that were true why is it a felony of the 3rd degree right now to be 18-20 in possesion of a firearm?
That is taking guns away.
It is preventing the legal purchase and private manufacture of firearms, being in possesion of said firearms, unless proof it was gifted, of those 18-21.
Beings it is illegal in this state to create a list record or registry of firearms and their owners, they can't really offer an amnesty like NY had to when they turned everyone in the state into a felon via SAFEACT if their weapon could carry more than 7 rounds in factory configuration.
Why do I think only mom's want this?
Who tends to be illogical and emotional driven beings?
The only restriction there needs to be in this day and age, is restricting Motive, Incentive, and Intent.
Not conflation, false equivalencies, nor emotional knee jerk responses.
Can start by removing motive, by attacking freedom of the press in how they irresponsibly publish the tactics and weapons used by scumbag school shooters. It serves as a study guide for a sick degenerate form of achieving some score or count.
At least that's what the Lanza scumbag had confessed to... studying and idolizing columbine.
Can start by removing incentive. Allow school faculty to be armed, and take the training required to thwart an active shooter.
No more gun free zones.
Can start by removing intent.
Make a credible threat of violence, you get locked up.
Failure to apprehend or investigate the dirtbag, should result in the agency being responsible for their ineptitude to act in preventing a potential hostile dirtbag.
To falsely equate, to assume, to conflate law abiding peaceable citizens with heinous scumbags is mental midget Olympics of the highest degree...
But if NRA loving mom and dad want to get their first grader a gun and the constitution doesn't say no, is that the next battle for gun worshipping moms and dad's? Why not add that to the Florida lawsuit?
It is not up to you to raise their kids for them, how you think.
I had my .410 in first grade and took it to show & tell in 2nd grade.
The only restriction there needs to be in this day and age, is restricting Motive, Incentive, and Intent.
Not conflation, false equivalencies, nor emotional knee jerk responses.
Can start by removing motive, by attacking freedom of the press in how they irresponsibly publish the tactics and weapons used by scumbag school shooters. It serves as a study guide for a sick degenerate form of achieving some score or count.
At least that's what the Lanza scumbag had confessed to... studying and idolizing columbine.
Can start by removing incentive. Allow school faculty to be armed, and take the training required to thwart an active shooter.
No more gun free zones.
Can start by removing intent.
Make a credible threat of violence, you get locked up.
Failure to apprehend or investigate the dirtbag, should result in the agency being responsible for their ineptitude to act in preventing a potential hostile dirtbag.
To falsely equate, to assume, to conflate law abiding peaceable citizens with heinous scumbags is mental midget Olympics of the highest degree...
Schools are there to teach, nothing else. Something is wrong with our society if we need to arm our schools.
The only reason the NRA is suing is because they are scared of losing their power.....and they won't win. You know, people are tired of schools, businesses and venues being shot up by people with arms superior to our police force. Florida is the first state to take a stand. More states will follow.
So the NRA is suing for Nikolas Cruz to have a gun.
That guy is incarcerated, where you actually lose your rights.
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.