what gun control do you support?

don't forget, she is going to keep her guns. She's of the opinion only fed employees over a certain rank should keep their arms. She is a capitalist speaking Socialism. She's a thief. She is a coward. She's a two-faced commie, just like her buds, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Schumer, Clinton and BHO.

 

too much coffee today?

 

Background checks don't need 3 or 7 days to complete, it should only take a few minutes. Extra days might prevent spur of the moment events, but Lanza attempted to get more guns on Tuesday of the week of the shootings. Waiting days aren't a total determent.

Waiting days isn't going to change anything. The point is, folks wish to implement something to say they've accomplished something. I wake up and brush my teeth every morning, I don't feel like I've accomplished anything.

Different strokes for different folks. I don't hunt nor do I take part in competition target shooting either.

I have nothing to worry about, MD did a full investigation, I had to wait 7 days, and they sent me home with a semi-auto rifle. I have nothing to be concerned with, rest assured. However, you're missing my point, which I would expect those who want to see this bill pushed through wouldn't want to see every side.

And you're talking about responsible gun owners. The problem is, they'll never open it up to the public. Furthermore, your scenario you've just described, nothing can possibly stop that, outside of just responsible gun owners. That's why folks are pushing for a gun registry so they can track all of the guns. Another bad idea.

 

here if you have PAL you've already gone through a background check and passed the required firearms safety courses and all that isn't done in a week...the point I was making in spontaneous "heat of the moment" events will be prevented, and people like Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner and James Holmes will never get a weapon unless someone gives them one...

if you have a PAL system in place as we do you don't need to access the data base, the PAL confirms to the seller at a gun show you have already been cleared, it's no different having a drivers license... and no one is denied having drivers permit unless there have been court orders prohibiting them or if they have medical conditions preventing it...holding sellers responsible to sell only to legitimate owners works...legitimate owners have nothing to fear...

 

Sure, spontaneous 'heat of the moment' ones would be prevented, but not the plotted out ones. Lanza didn't legally own any guns, a PAL system never would've stopped him from getting 'a' gun, because his mom legally owned all of the guns he used. Jared Loughner & James Holmes both passed the background checks and legally owned their guns. A PAL system simply would've given them the same access as they had before. Again, it wouldn't have stopped either 3 of them from committing what they did.

Sure, this type of system could work. Just as long as no database is created. I only see a need for a database for those who've committed a crime. The resistance you see, from most law abiding citizens, is the issue of a centralized database.

 

mentally unstable people passing the checks is what's wrong not the idea of requiring a permit, clearly the background check for mental health issues failed(if there was one)...if Lanza wasn't permitted to operate a gun then he should never been able to access his mothers guns...here guns are required to be secured, my bro-in-law has his collection secured with trigger locks, in a gun safe, in a secured room...in Norway they need to be secured in a gun safe and a critical component must be removed and stored elsewhere so even with theft the gun is not operational...

do you have an issue with carrying a drivers license, how is this any more onerous? someone operating a car without a license has their a** nailed...and if they get into an accident and kill someone their even in more s***...

having a data base for criminals won't work, because no proof is required for purchase... a criminal isn't going to voluntarily provide evidence he's in the data base, they'll deny they are and sellers will just take their word for it...as well the seller would need instant access to the database which you say will not be granted....if only the law abiding and mentally stable can get a permit after a thorough background check, criminals will be reduced to smuggling and theft to acquire weapons...

 

you get permssion to do anything from your government. We don't. That's the big difference between being lorded over and being free. I can understand why you would want us brought down th your level instead of rising to ours.....poor poor canucks

 

Long range is nice. I'm a short range BR shooter myself.
FWIW the largest shooting sport in the US is National High Power with the largest division of that sport using military style weapons (the AR-15)
This BS!!! AWB Feinstein tried to pass would have effectively wiped out the largest shooting sport in the entire country.
Although your son in law and I compete in different venues we should never forget about the largest competition and the law abiding shooters that compete Nationally.
http://www.6mmbr.com/highpowerbasics.html

Keep up the fight, thanks for your service and wish your son in law my best at his first match.
Arguing on this thread against these antigunners is like banging your head against a brick wall whilst chewing on rocks.

 

I support the U.S. Constitution and admit that I would like to see it amended to affect the 2nd. Things are out of hand and this society needs to change (and in the proper amount of time, it will).

How many more senseless and tragic deaths that will take... I really don't know.

 

There has to be some compromise. I'm NEVER going to buy the notion that we need MILLIONS of unregistered weapon floating around out here... to preserve our reasonable freedoms. Because we've let the GUN thing get out of hand, we're all in more danger than we need to be.

To me, that is insane.

Mandatory background checks and registration... yeah, we DO NEED those.

 

What would you hope to gain by registration?

 

1. To know who has what and whether or not they should.
2. Revenue to offset law enforcement and medical costs related to firearms.

That's 2 things off of the top of my head.

 

I thought background checks would determine whether or not they should? "What" is irrelevant if legal. If illegal it will not be registered.
So you want to tax a right? 10 cents a word should raise plenty of revenue on the first amendment. Have you written your representatives?

 

Was the list of selections taken from the Brady Campaign website? I have to ask because they are not based upon any rational thought process and don't accomplish anything of significance. Remember we had the "Brady Bill" in effect for ten years and it had no statistical impact on gun violence.

What I recommend is really quite simple.

1. Provide online access to the FBI NICS database for all Americans that want to sell a firearm. We, the law-abiding gun owners, don't want to sell firearms to those that are prohibited from owning or possessing them. We don't need a mandate to use this database because it's in our best self-interest to use it but we're currently prohibited from using it. Criminals won't use it even if it's mandatory so a mandate makes no sense.

2. Provide online access to a database that contains the serial numbers of stolen firearms for the buyers of firearms. Law-abiding people don't want to purchase stolen firearms and we don't require a mandate to use a system that identifies stolen firearms. Criminals don't care if a gun is stolen and won't use the system even if its mandatory under the law.

3. If a person prohibited from owning a firearm is identified by the FBI NICS database or if a stolen firearm is identifed then we need law enforcement to immediately respond to arrest and prosecute the person violating the law. This is NOT being done today and it does no good to deny a person the purchase of a firearm or allow a person to walk away with a stolen firearm because the law isn't being enforced. I want a "button" where I can report my location immediately to law enforcement to arrest the person in violation of the law while they're still there. Stop illegal gun purchases and the sale of stolen firearms by enforcing the law!

4. Any person carrying a firearm in public should have a license to do so (like the CCW for concealed firearms general "carry" or a hunting license for limited "carry" of a firearm in public). It can include the registration of the firearm to be carried in public. No licensing or registration of firearm never taken off private property (or transported in a safe manner from one private property location to another) as these do no represent a "public safety" issue.

5. All state issued general carry "CCW" type licenses should be recognized across all state lines under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.

Done.

 

No, I don't.

You imagined or made that up.

Really? How so?

Societies change and so do laws.

I don't remember a time in my life where some law didn't (in some way) limit/qualify my individual autonomy. That notion of absolute freedom, is a MYTH.

Break a law (especially certain ones), and see how 'wrong' you are about that. The "rights"you possess, are essentially those afforded to you by legal consensus of the people under the U.S. Constitution. Got any dispute with that kind of thing? Take it to court.

What made them stop anywhere, so far? (No. I'm not buying any paranoid , anti-government BS.)

You have in your mind that rights are to be 'taken'; I think your imagination takes you too far. And there IS as need to limit the availability and power of weapons which individual citizens may hold. If your mind allows you to slippery-slope that into destroying the 2nd Amendment or something extreme like that, it's your problem.

I'm in the U.S. Military. We don't make plans to apply force to American citizens that I know of. Like everyone else, I work to make the civilian government responsive to my concerns; I don't clutch my little pea shooters in hopes of defeating an arsenal larger than I can imagine. In case no one told you... you aren't going to out-gun the Government. Get your ass on the phone to your representatives and to the polls... that's your best best; bank on it.

I think we are plenty armed; and I think those who believe we have guns to defeat our own government.... are interpreting the 2nd Amendment in some misguided and extreme manner. (That's a thread all by itself.)

This nation has not been without its socialist measures; and I'm not talking about anything extreme, even if it is 'more'. Even so, considering that manner in which many on the Right fearfully amplify their Chicken Little thinking... if you're not expressing the equivalent of "corporations should rule everything", they will complain and scream bloody murder.

Why don't YOU move? I'm not going to just accept what some others say is THE way, when in THIS society we DO (as equal citizens) have the right to develop our own minds and express our own thoughts. You're the one that sounds un-American to me.

 

ABSOLUTLY she is going to keep her's and the people that protect her will keep theirs, it's only us out here in the real world that she wants to disarm

 

Thank you

True. The, the antigunners seem to be so short sighted they can't see beyond the nose on their face.

 

Quit wrapping yourself in the robes of, "I just want to save the children". Nonsense. What we need is to ENFORCE the laws already on the books. Come on, Johnny, we have over 24,000 gun laws and you don't think there's one in there to cover any and all situations??

 

No, not doing that; but you 'think' I am.

Try again.

 

pure fantasy, can you drive a car without a license? what's that you say "that isn't permitted" how about flying a plane without a license "no that isn't permitted either" practicing medicine without a license "no we can't do that either" huh!... you claimed you don't need government permission for anything...

I could go on and on but the silliness of your argument is quite obvious...

 

No registration, period. We already have background checks. Just not the ones the Neo-Comms want. We don't need any Doctors saying, "I don't think that person needs to have a weapon". As I have already pointed out, New York has got their butt in a wringer over that one already. Now, once more, why have families for the last 200 years been able to keep their weapons from hanging over the front door to being kept in the closet and it's only thing generation that's started the wholesale taking and killing with them??? Is it the weapons or is it the interference in the way children were raised??

 

And to be able with little effort confiscate when the government takes a notion. And number 2 is worse than silly. The person that does the shooting can be sued, property taken to settle the costs, etc, etc.

 

Sorry Johnny, you yourself have said most of what stjames is pointing out. And the reason stjames isn't about to move to Australia is because he LIKES the gun laws here the way they are now, it's you that doesn't and are touting the laws of Australia. So if they are so good and you like them so well, why not go where you like what the laws are?? You can beat your head against a brick wall all you want but it isn't going to change things.

 

Your views is reasonable and spot-on!!

 

You aren't correct about either of these. For one, we have GAPING HOLES in our system of weapons sales.

In time, you will lose that argument in a manner you'll have to accept.

This society AND its laws WILL change.