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.
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.
Think how many that smoke weed that would instantly be made illegal to own.
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.
"Inconvenience me" you say?! Twisting the 2A? These "inconveniences" you speak of entail me turning in my personal property to the cops or face forced confiscation. I will be turned into a criminal at the stroke of a pen and that's an "inconvenience?"
Just because I own and use a rifle in a civilian configuration that the US military uses. Like citizens of the US have done since before we became an official nation. From the Charleville musket to now the AR 15 US citizens have owned used and had available the same firearms the military uses.
We are now limited to semi auto only since 1934 and current issue military guns are select fire. So we have semi auto only. Personally I'm OK with that but now these blathering fools on the left want THAT taken away. Telling me I can't be trusted with such rifles as a citizen. That is a bit more than an inconvenience man.
And next up it will be bolt action and probably pump and lever as well "sniper rifles" that these shrieking cretins will be howling about. Nobody NEEDS a rifle that can hit a target at 500 yards and beyond dontcha know. It never ends. There is no red line. Total disarmament of US citizens is all they will settle for. That has been proven and people wonder why we don't want to give another inch on firearms rights. We have been infringed enough.
The 2A is quite clear. We firearms owners are not the ones twisting it.
"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.
"Don't hit a girl" was so ingrained into me as a kid that I just can't imagine striking my wife. And she's made me angry enough a couple of times in 35 years that she thought I might--but the impulse never even came to my mind.
The concept, the thought is so far away from my brain that I'm not sure a man who would beat his wife doesn't have murder in his heart.
The gun laws aren't that tough at all. That's part of the problem. Chicago is very soft on criminals with gun related charges. Also, almost anyone can get a conceal and carry permit. So, there's that.
Seems to me that "almost anyone can get a conceal and carry permit" can't be true, since I found it tough enough even in downstate Illinois. Nor does that even matter, unless there are statistics of people with permits being significantly identified as criminal shooters.
I think common sense gun laws are in order and more cops or armed security. Britain don't have shootings and police don't even carry. They have a few knife attacks but a mass knifing is never really talked about now is it?
In Britain, an unarmed cop says, "Stop, you're under arrest," and the criminal will probably say, "Okay, you got me."
It's a wholly different social mindset that doesn't start with gun laws.
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.
It never ends. There is no red line. Total disarmament of US citizens is all they will settle for. That has been proven and people wonder why we don't want to give another inch on firearms rights. We have been infringed enough.
