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.
As you can see, much of your brethren arent willing to look for solutions that inconvenience them, for the good of the nation.
Wouldnt surprise me if they represent much of the mentality of the country, only twisting the 2A in order to keep it easy for them to get their killing pistols.
"turn in assault guns" can't turn in something that does NOT EXIST!
Just because ignorant people CLAIM a certain gun is an "assault weapon", does NOT make it so.
Every state that has done so, uses cosmetics to describe them which has NOTHING to do with the capabilities of the gun itself.
"We are in a war zone and we may be losing battles and the war." So in your mind the private citizen should have a LESS effective gun then the one your are fighting!
Would you feel better if it was high capacity magazines and stripper clips that were made illegal?
"Really? I don't want anyone who beats a spouse to have access to a gun."
Nice of you to ACCUSE EVER spouse beater as a murderer.
I don't want a spouse beater to have access to an instrument that with a simple trigger pull kills someone. I want spouse beaters in jail. Every. Single. Time.
So it's OK to leave a battered spouse to be beaten but not shot? Why not remove a violent person from society?
You missed the point, and I suspect purposely. Not wanting a spouse beater have access to a firearm has nothing to do with me not wanting that person incarcerated. It means I don't want that person to have access to a firearm...ever, even after they have "paid their debt to society". No. Gun. Ever.
Unfortunately, I think the ultimate solution here is to implement a federal firearm licensing program similar to what many states have in place now.
Here's why I don't think this would fly.
#1, it interferes with a state's rights to set their own laws when it comes to topics like this. While everyone points the finger at Trump and congress to do something, the change really should come at the state level, and it really needs to be sweeping change such as licensing and restrictions. Why don't the states do it then? See #2
#2, under such a federal program (or a new state program), a good chunk of people who currently own firearms probably won't be qualified to own them due to some of the disqualifiers many states have in place with their licensing programs. Very minor crimes and even traffic misdemeanors are disqualifiers in some states. As a result, the program would disqualify millions of owners and require confiscation of their firearms. Who is going to put that plan in action? What sort of waves will that generate? Who's going door to door to collect them then? Because such a change will require this action.
Unfortunately, I think the ultimate solution here is to implement a federal firearm licensing program similar to what many states have in place now.
Here's why I don't think this would fly.
#1, it interferes with a state's rights to set their own laws when it comes to topics like this. While everyone points the finger at Trump and congress to do something, the change really should come at the state level, and it really needs to be sweeping change such as licensing and restrictions. Why don't the states do it then? See #2
#2, under such a federal program (or a new state program), a good chunk of people who currently own firearms probably won't be qualified to own them due to some of the disqualifiers many states have in place with their licensing programs. Very minor crimes and even traffic misdemeanors are disqualifiers in some states. As a result, the program would disqualify millions of owners and require confiscation of their firearms. Who is going to put that plan in action? What sort of waves will that generate? Who's going door to door to collect them then? Because such a change will require this action.
Needless to say, this is why nothing gets done.
Feds and most states won't do it. There's an old saying, "Nobody want's to take responsibility to shoot the family pet because it bit the baby."
Simple. Get rid of your guns. They serve no real purpose except for increasing the existential threat to all. The timelines for Dayton and Gilroy illustrate this perfectly.
If you can’t acknowledge that these cases bust a huge hole in the good guy with a gun myth then you are probably addicted to your guns and arguing with you is the same as arguing with a drug addict.
Millions of people simple have a gun for hunting. I am addicted to hunting.
Notice Australia hasn't had any mass shootings lately?
The State of Australia has committed "mass shootings" lately.
I know, brown babies in Afghanistan don't count.
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.
