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.
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?
The observed fact is indeed that many of us -- probably most of us -- who own guns also favor tighter more effective gun controls in America …
This indicates that the Gun Nut culture is not synonymous with "American gun owners" ...
Reasonable sensible gun control laws and regulations are not about a "prohibition of guns" … anymore than licensing and regulating vehicles are drivers are about "prohibition of driving" …
Hello … ???
Comparing firearms to vehicles is apples to oranges, as there is no constitutional right to own and operate a vehicle.
(1) Mental health status exam at time of application to purchase any gun and/or ammo …
(2) Minimum ninety day waiting period to take possession of any gun and/or ammo …
(3) Mental health status exam again when possession is made …
(4) NO private sales or gifts of any guns and/or ammo without the above process, including within families and/or at gun shows …
(5) Mandatory safety training …
(6) ALL guns kept unloaded, trigger locked, in gun safe, with ammo kept under lock and key separately …
(7) Maximum five shot capacity magazine …
(8) VERY severe legal penalties for any abuse of firearm rights/privileges, including negligence …
Those would be a good start, IMHO …
As a legal experienced safety trained private gun owner, I would be willing to abide by all of the above ..
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"?
My guess is that Rosie gets a lot of threats and hate mail from....you guessed it, gun fetishists. She needs armed guards.
Since she isn't attracting them with her good looks it must be her wonderful personality and quiet manner. Don't act like a dog and then complain when they sniff around and you gather flies.
Not to get off track but the 2d amendment does say "well regulated."
And if you had any idea of context, you'd have explained it but since you don't...
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.
