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 lean a bit to the left. I don't own a gun. I do not wish to, simply because I don't think the risk vs. benefit makes it worth while for me in my life.
I'm fine with people owning guns if they are proficient in using them. I think they need to demonstrate proficiency yearly.
I do not think mentally ill people, or previous violent crime offenders should have a right to firearms.
Simply put, if you want a right that could potentially result in harm to another human being, you should be responsible as well.
If someone is drunk or on drugs with a gun however, I think that should face harsher penalties than drunk driving. I have seen drunk people with guns, far to risky. Pick one at a time, the booze or the gun.
I'm a lefty and I support gun ownership, but with regulations.
I believe there should be a mandatory background check and psychological evaluation for everybody who wishes to own and/or carry a weapon. Weapons should also be registered with the state. Some states already do this, some don't.
Call it a radical idea if you want, but I am for ballistic fingerprinting. Each firearm sold should have a fired casing turned in to law enforcement.
I lean a bit to the left. I don't own a gun. I do not wish to, simply because I don't think the risk vs. benefit makes it worth while for me in my life.
I'm fine with people owning guns if they are proficient in using them. I think they need to demonstrate proficiency yearly. another bureaucracy which leads to a universal ownership list. Do we test drivers yearly? .I do not think mentally ill people, or previous violent crime offenders should have a right to firearms already the law Simply put, if you want a right that could potentially result in harm to another human being, you should be responsible as well. 99% of legal owners are If someone is drunk or on drugs with a gun however, I think that should face harsher penalties than drunk driving. I have seen drunk people with guns, far to risky. Pick one at a time, the booze or the gun. in what way, do you mean I can't drink my monthly gin and tonic and own a gun? I think those are reasonable limitations. most gun owners would not
Not to be insulting but you anti-gunners, and that's what you are despite your protestations, generally are unaware of the already in place restrictions on law abiding gun owners.
The killer at Virginia Tech was able to legally buy his handguns because the law did not mandate that his mental health records be reported to the federal background check system. Even though that specific problem has since been fixed at the state level in Virginia, a future shooter would still be able to walk into a gun show in more than 30 states (including Virginia) and purchase a firearm(s) from an unlicensed seller without undergoing any background check whatsoever. We have visited gun shows in Virginia and other states and witnessed these unregulated sales firsthand. Some of us have even purchased guns in this manner and documented it on video in order to demonstrate how easy it is.
When we ask law enforcement what we can do to prevent another Virginia Tech shooting—the response is invariably "close the Gun Show Loophole" to stop criminals, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill, and other prohibited purchasers from getting guns. The Virginia Tech Review Panel Report made the recommendation that all private sales at gun shows be processed through the background check system, stating, "In an age of widespread information technology, it should not be too difficult for anyone, including private sellers, to contact the [appropriate federal and state databases] for a background check that usually only takes minutes before transferring a firearm."
Read more: Virginia Tech Families Thank Congressmen for their Leadership on Gun Show Loophole Issue
The killer at Virginia Tech was able to legally buy his handguns because the law did not mandate that his mental health records be reported to the federal background check system. Even though that specific problem has since been fixed at the state level in Virginia, a future shooter would still be able to walk into a gun show in more than 30 states (including Virginia) and purchase a firearm(s) from an unlicensed seller without undergoing any background check whatsoever. We have visited gun shows in Virginia and other states and witnessed these unregulated sales firsthand. Some of us have even purchased guns in this manner and documented it on video in order to demonstrate how easy it is.
When we ask law enforcement what we can do to prevent another Virginia Tech shooting—the response is invariably "close the Gun Show Loophole" to stop criminals, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill, and other prohibited purchasers from getting guns. The Virginia Tech Review Panel Report made the recommendation that all private sales at gun shows be processed through the background check system, stating, "In an age of widespread information technology, it should not be too difficult for anyone, including private sellers, to contact the [appropriate federal and state databases] for a background check that usually only takes minutes before transferring a firearm."
Read more: Virginia Tech Families Thank Congressmen for their Leadership on Gun Show Loophole Issue
Or perhaps, if they stopped restricting the right of people to carry guns, we wouldn't have 30+ defenseless people killed.
You can't stop anyone from selling a gun to another without going to a dealer. End of story. It's just another restriction really aimed at the law abiding.
Or perhaps, if they stopped restricting the right of people to carry guns, we wouldn't have 30+ defenseless people killed.
You can't stop anyone from selling a gun to another without going to a dealer. End of story. It's just another restriction really aimed at the law abiding.
When we ask law enforcement what we can do to prevent another Virginia Tech shooting—the response is invariably "close the Gun Show Loophole" to stop criminals, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill, and other prohibited purchasers from getting guns.
Do you not trust a police officers judgement?
Blows my mind. When people say they don't trust cops about the Arizona law, the answer is "They aren't out to be bad cops, trust the police" Yet, when you bring up something like this, to hell with what the police tell you.
Blows my mind. When people say they don't trust cops about the Arizona law, the answer is "They aren't out to be bad cops, trust the police" Yet, when you bring up something like this, to hell with what the police tell you.
You can't have it both ways.
My local police force has had one officer watching child porn in his office, another tortured a shackled suspect...so, no, unless it's one I know well, I don't think of a cop's word as any higher than anyone else's.
Furthermore, the "law enforcement" in question, are a bunch of political activists in the first place.
I'm a liberal, I live in the country, I own guns. I oppose gun control laws..
The difference between myself and the RW gun freaks is that I look upon a gun as nothing more than another tool. Not some weird extension of my manhood..
anyone that believes a gun is just another tool, is a tool, and have no busisness handling such a tool
So you have no example where someone needed to buy a gun that day, where they couldn't have relied on police protection, or hadn't broken any laws themselves.
Kind of shoots your argument full of holes.
A 10 day waiting period while your background check is run, most rational, law abiding citizens have no problem with.
Its not the law abiding citizens I woory about, Its the criminals that dont have to wait to get a gun .lets go after those people .they commit a crime with a gun, if found guilty atomatic life in prison. stop punishing evryone for what a few criminals do. I believe everyone who owns a home should be riquire to own a gun.that will keep crime down
anyone that believes a gun is just another tool, is a tool, and have no busisness handling such a tool
And just what uniquely qualifies you to make such a statement? To me, a firearm IS a tool. One I use as a weapon to be sure, but a tool nonetheless. A firearm is just a mechanical device. I have been handling firearms since I was quite young, use them frequently, and consider a firearm a required piece of gear. Nothing more special than anything else I throw in the truck or my saddlebags.Other than having it's own specific set of rules and maintenance procedures it is just a tool. Used to keep predators off my stock, harvest game or have some fun at the range. In extreme cases it may be used to defend my home, my family or myself. Funny, I don't feel...unqualified...to handle any of my firearms because I consider them tools.
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.
