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 don't really have a huge problem with those although they need some clarification.
In particular:
(1) Any such exam needs to be standardized and there needs to be a verifiable way to establish that the examiners are capable and impartial. The cost should also be limited. I'm not crazy so it doesn't matter to me personally but I can see these potential problems.
(2) 90 days is too long. What's wrong with 30 days?
(3) This should be brief and limited to confirming that you are not crazy or a hothead.
(4) Same as above.
(5) Not a problem. Training should be required and repeated at reasonable intervals.
(6) I don't see why it's not sufficient to have the guns locked in a safe, unloaded. Why does the ammo have to be kept somewhere separate?
(7) What's wrong with existing law?
(8) Not a problem, although what do we mean by "severe"?
The fact that at least one person in this discussion agrees with the need for such/similar reforms indicates that the Gun Nut guys do NOT speak for all of the American public ...
You are mistaken that those that support reasonable gun control are "anti" gun. It couldn't be further from the truth. I support common-sense reforms. I have no interest in taking away everyone's guns.
There are certain classes of weapons that I don't think should be allowed in casual ownership. I think there are too many loopholes--straw man purchases, gun show purchases, private sales, etc.
.
Maybe because people want responsible gun ownership. Unstable people are getting too many guns. It's harder to get a drivers license. Gun ownership isn't a right if your certifiable. Common sense is king....
Maybe because people want responsible gun ownership. Unstable people are getting too many guns. It's harder to get a drivers license. Gun ownership isn't a right if your certifiable. Common sense is king....
Not to get off track but the 2d amendment does say "well regulated."
If you want gun owners to be "well regulated" as the Framers intended, you'd wind up with the govt reimbursing gun owners for the money we spend on firearms, ammo, and training.
You'd best stop applying 21st century definitions to 18th century documents.
It is true that those who support the most restrictive gun controls also own guns.
Why then do all those people not simply turn in their guns and go on record as having done so? Shouldn't they participate in a national "I am unarmed" registry to demonstrate their "I do as I say" attitudes?
Because they are critical thinkers as opposed to reactionists. They are for the right to bear arms, just not for an "either/or" solution as the gun-nuts seem to be.
Despite what we hear from many on this board, you can be a "pro-gun ownership" *and also want* common sense regulations in place. They are merely not part of the paranoia, whining, narcissism and conspiracy theories that is part of "gun-nut culture."
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.
