Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Firearms proposal from da Basement

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Yah, hmmm...

    Good thoughts, DeanRx. I confess I don't hold with any one notion myself; I think it's interestin' to explore da options. I guess I'd lean toward TwoCubDad's approach, since it's more in tune with my conservative views, but let me respond to yours.

    I think we have a pretty broad consensus on da mental health side of things here as well. It's interestin' to me that you're willing to dispense with rights to liberty and due process quite so readily. Those are, after all, very strong Constitutional rights. That havin' been said, I'd be in favor of revamping da approach to mental health care mostly along da lines you suggest. We have to be somewhat cautious about protectin' folks rights to liberty and due process, of course, but as long as we build that in thoughtfully, I'm OK. We've strayed too far da other way. All rights are subject to appropriate regulation and limits for da safety of society.

    I reckon there should also be a system in place like there is for child abuse, where anyone can make a report on someone they feel has become unsafe/mentally unstable with firearms, and some professionals like teachers, physicians, and firearms instructors should be mandatory reporters.

    Da much harder question is how do we pay for that? Perhaps the biggest drive toward dismantling da mental health system was caused by the cost savings states and insurers realized. Addin' to the homeless is a lot cheaper than institutionalization.

    I'd be supportive of da relatively low-cost, one-time expenses in terms of school security that yeh mention. Those offer reasonable protection for reasonable cost. Probably a bit of funding for training/coordination between the school folks and the local PD (the way there's training/coordination on fire safety and inspections with da local fire department) is a good notion.

    I have a bigger problem with da practicalities of zero-tolerance enforcement/incarceration that yeh propose. While I understand da emotional attractiveness of it, it's very very expensive, and often hard to make work. It's never as easy or clean-cut as yeh portray it, either. Decent folks get tagged for "brandishing" sometimes on technicalities, and I don't reckon we really want to send the family breadwinner up for 5 years for a moment's thoughtlessness. Yeh get a quadruple-whammy on such things, eh? Yeh have to pay for da prosecution, da incarceration, da loss of tax revenue from the fellow who loses his job and probably can't get a good one when he gets out, and da social service support of his family.

    If yeh must have a justice system or regulatory response, then license to carry, use, or purchase firearms or ammunition should be graduated like drivers' licenses, with a combination of required education and mentoring at the start for young folks, workin' up to higher classifications with more responsibility. Yeh want to hunt, get trained and licensed for that; yeh want to carry for protection in crowded public places, get trained and licensed for that. That license should be renewed regularly by testing proficiency at da appropriate level, which includes a basic physical/mental health evaluation, same way drivers' licenses or pilots' licenses do. Da license can be suspended or revoked for bein' a doofus, like carryin' when drunk, which offers a lower-tier, less-expensive, regulatory response short of incarceration.

    Such a license system would also allow for an independent non-law-enforcement agency to suspend or revoke a license and remove guns after an investigation based on a mandatory reporter callin' in. Same as action to remove children from unsafe environments, eh?

    Beavah

    Comment


    • #77
      So Beavah, let's get it right. You said: "That right should not be broken, but da Congress in Article I is given full powers to regulate." but the Constitution says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So it is not 'broken' as you say but the much stronger and more limiting 'infringed'. Frankly, all but revamping the US mental health system is an infringement upon those rights.

      In regards to Article 1, you must be referring to these clauses in Section 8:

      "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

      That in no manner gives the federal government the right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. In the early days of the Republic, the government would inspect the firearms that the men owned to be certain that they were functional - they did not dictate which ones that they could own. There were bombs, cannon, mortars, and rockets in the US Revolution. We were not given the protected right to personally own such weapons. That is not a valid argument for usurp peoples rights. The Congress could issue the militias arms that they wished to be used in militia service. However, that did not give it the power to regulate the ownership of private firearms.

      You and the rest of the liberals do not wish to follow the constitution because you all realize that it would fail. Therefore, you hide behind good sounding rhetoric to infringe upon our rights. It is well known that only the mental health revamp would have prevented the mass murders but yet you and the rest of the left wants to do it anyway? Why, if it would not work? Either the goal is to gain more control over law abiding citizens or it is simple folly. Considering the English used by you and others trying to subvert the constitution, the former is more likely than the later. That would make Cuomo's call for gun confiscation the next step because we already know that these will not work.

      Comment


      • #78
        Beavah,

        We are probably closer together than we are apart on most of the issues.

        I'm all for training - mandatory.

        As for the zero-tolerance issue... well, I guess I just feel we need some stronger teeth in the brandish a weapon in the act of a crime department. Most criminals KNOW what they are doing. They are using the firearm to intimidate a victim into doing what they want. I have friends that have been robbed, I have been robbed... without showing me his weapon, I would have probably told the thug to F-off and ran away instead of handing over my wallet.

        As for persoanl liberty for the mentally ill. Well, if we are going to go down the road of imposing restrictions on people's freedoms and liberty, I'm more in favor of doing it to someone who has SHOWN to be violent or have violent tendancies, or at least threaten violence. The fact that they may or may not have the mental capacity to KNOW the difference is not of as much concern to me, frankly. That's a better option that is a result of THEIR own ACTIONS. Instead of restricting everyone's rights and liberty because of the actions of OTHERS.

        James Holmes had at least three interventions with mental health officals PRIOR to his shooting spree in Aurora. It was severe enough mental illness to remove him from the Univ. of Colorado - Denver and have his campus access restricted? Hmm, poster child for someone who needed his personal liberty infringed to protect the greater public.

        Maybe a mandatory reporting requirement would have helped? I don't know.

        To me, one of the most troubling aspects in all these shootings (aside from the horrendous act itself) is the fact that so many times, an opportunity to intervene earlier was either missed, or not identified, or simply overlooked as "not my problem to deal with". UC-Denver certainly thought so... this guy was too dangerous to be on campus, but they didn't alert police or think he might be a threat off campus?

        The shooter in AZ - father has gone on record stating he tried to get his son committed, but couldn't do so because he was an "adult". There's some strong circumstantial stuff out regarding Adam Lanza that his brother might have known something was up PRIOR to the shooting... time will tell if that data is made availible. However, the initial reports were that there was some type of communication between the shooter and his brother, or at least confusion as to whether his brother was involved. Suspect that won't be known until after the final investigation report is complete.

        Bottom line - these time bombs do not tick in a vaccum. There are people around them that KNOW something is very seriously WRONG. If we are going to infringe on anyone personal liberty, that is where we should begin. Not with a cart blanche move against every stable, law abiding citizen's rights.

        Dean

        Comment


        • #79
          Yah, right there with yeh, DeanRx. I think my biggest disappointment is that none of da proposals really seems to address the mental health system at all. That's a missed opportunity to do somethin' that might genuinely help prevent some of these cases, as well as serve many individuals and families who could frankly use da help.

          Vol_scouter, I couldn't parse half of that.

          Let's keep it simple. A grenade launcher is an arm. If yeh truly maintain that da right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, with an expansive readin' of the term infringed and assiduously ignorin' that whole bit about well-regulated militia, then how can yeh justify federal regulations prohibiting private ownership of grenade launchers? Why can my constitutional right to bear arms be infringed in that way?

          Individuals absolutely owned cannons, mortars and all da rest in da Revolution and the early days of the Republic. Private commercial shipping routinely sailed armed. Why can da government now infringe on my right to own a howitzer? An armament is an armament, eh? There's no qualification in da Second Amendment that limits it to guns.

          What do yeh say to this issue? I really want to know.

          I do enjoy how I've magically become a liberal because I believe in responsible gun ownership. I reckon that's da tale of modern "conservatives", eh? They just keep droppin' that "responsible" part, no matter what da issue is. :P

          Beavah
          (This message has been edited by Beavah)

          Comment


          • #80
            Never heard cannon, mortars, howitzers, etc being called arms. Looking up several online dictionaries reveals that to bear means to carry. If the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow us to have RPGs, Howitzers, etc, they would have been in some manner delineated. The Founding Fathers were rather specific. So you are simply incorrect.

            As most on this very forum have realized, background checks and all the other proposals would not have prevented the mass murderers. So why are you and others pushing for it? If you admit from the outset that it will not work, why punish the law abiding Americans? Why infringe our rights? The only reasonable answer is that then it all be said that the mass murders are still occurring and we need to follow Cuomo to gun confiscation.

            If you want to infringe gun rights, you need to amend the second amendment. It is that simple. You and the rest of the left know that it will never happen so you infringe on our rights. Even if these things were good ideas, which they are not, you must change the constitution. No wonder the left is saying to ignore the constitution. One academician is calling to get rid of the entire constitution. The left is shredding it so throwing it out is part of the natural progression. Never waste a 'crisis', right?

            Comment


            • #81
              Yah, you're funny! To bear arms is a term of art, eh? As to da Founding Fathers being "specific", let me just remind yeh that da plural "arms" also refers to heraldry, eh? As in a "coat of arms." So a plain-text reading of da Constitution which ignores da whole well-regulated militia bit that yeh don't seem to like actually just protects the right of Americans to keep and bear symbols of heraldry. If they wanted it to mean "guns", "they would in some manner have delineated" right?

              But let's keep this dirt simple. A rocket-propelled grenade or other light antitank weapon and launcher is perfectly portable by a human being, is sold by arms dealers worldwide, and has been part of official U.S. government "arms sales" with various nations. So it's legally defined as "arms" by da U.S., and it can be borne no matter how badly yeh mangle da definitions of those words.

              So again, in your opinion and accordin' to your definitions, does that mean that my right to a high-explosive rocket-propelled antitank munition cannot be infringed?

              As to cannon, let me quote Thomas Jefferson's correspondence in da lead-up to the War of 1812: "Great Britain ought not to complain: for, since the date of the order forbidding that any of the belligerent powers should equip themselves in our ports with our arms, these two cannon are all that have escaped the vigilance of our officers, on the part of their enemies... it is equally true that more than ten times that number of Americans are at this moment on board English ships of war, who have been taken forcibly from our merchant vessels, at sea or in port wherever met with, & compelled to bear arms against the friends of their country. So for Jefferson and his contemporaries, "arms" included full-out ships cannon, the most powerful weapons of the day. And "bearing arms" included being part of a ship's company and firing those cannon.

              Of course there are similar things from Hamilton, Madison, Washington, and any contemporaries. And we can take da definition of "arms" all the way back to da Latin, where it has always meant "weapons" in da generic sense, includin' catapults. That's why guns are called "small arms", eh?

              Da definition of "bear" that yeh are lookin' for is not "to carry", BTW, any more than "to bear fruit" means that you're carrying a fruit basket.

              Beavah

              Comment


              • #82
                It's tough to disentangle where collectivist desire to limit and control individuals ends and where innumerate reaction to popularized but vanishingly rare events begins.

                "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That doesn't grant us the right to bear arms; it assumes we have it (from elsewhere) and restricts the government from infringing on it.

                As for self defense against crime:
                When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

                Comment


                • #83
                  I agree with what most of DeanRx proposed. The mental health problem needs to be addressed. As I have stated before SWMBO is an elementary school nurse at a public school that, as of this year, had severely emotionally disturbed kids included. I hear the tales first hand of the kids who are out of control, and when needed, the parents refuse to answer the phone because they know their day will be inconvenienced. One fifth grader cannot be left alone EVER because he will steal anything that's not bolted down...anything, whether it has value or not. Another boy was raped by an older brother and cannot use the bathroom with the other kids. Another must be supervised in the bathroom because he will smear feces all over the walls, so it becomes the nurse's "problem". Most of them spend more time in the office or clinic than they do in the classroom. Several times a month, she has to call Social Services because kids are abused at home. There is no "learning" or "treatment" taking place...it's just free respite care for the parents, meanwhile the whole school is disrupted making it an undesirable and sometimes dangerous working environment for both staff and the other students. She has a few that she has predicted will end up in jail...or worse...before they reach adulthood. "Mainstreaming" is not doing these families any favors...but it's the expedient solution. It has turned my opinion to be in favor of school vouchers. While my heart goes out to parents with mentally ill kids, the regular kids deserve an education in a pleasant environment, too.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Mental health.....Everyone says this is the key.

                    Everything about the human body can deteriorate or break.

                    So how does one determine on a piece of paper at the time of a gun sale how one is mental deficient or could potentially break at some point.

                    While it needs to be addressed, I have no idea how it can be done in a meaningful way.


                    while the Aurora and Newtown guys had know issues, What about Virgina Tech, columbine, chardon or the ming minnesota or new york shootings????

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      My point was that most of these shooters were not mental illness rookies. Just ask their grade school teachers. As for the Va Tech shooter, Cho (Wikipedia):

                      "Born in South Korea, Cho arrived in the United States at the age of eight with his family. He became a US permanent resident as a South Korean national. In middle school, he was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder known as selective mutism, as well as major depressive disorder. After this diagnosis he began receiving treatment and continued to receive therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. During Cho's last two years at Virginia Tech, several instances of his abnormal behavior, as well as plays and other writings he submitted containing references to violence, caused concern among teachers and classmates."

                      And, because he was not in the "mental health system", he was still able to legally purchase firearms. There are thousands more like him out there walking among us.

                      My wife had a set of twins in school a few years ago with selective mutism. THey refused to talk, except to each other. The school was expected to just "deal with it".

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        So anyway, as I said further up, I will now reply a bit more fully. I'll try not to express too much opinion as I don't think it's really my place to do so, but perhaps a few observations.

                        The constitution - it seems to me that some people are putting the car before the horse here. It seems to me that as someone said it should be the "base line" it should set out basic rights and what the state can and cannot. In which case it seems to be that any given individual should be asking themselves "what should my basic rights be, what should the state have the right to do and not do and does the constitution adequately reflect that". But some people seem to be taking the view that the constitution is somehow something super natural, almost God like, that cannot be questioned, and just accept what it says without question. A constitution of any nation is, by definition, man made, so this seems an odd way to think.

                        Changes to gun laws. If, and only if, significant changes to gun control laws are needed it strikes me that changes to the constitution will be needed. I think the pro gun control folks would more easily get people on side by openly stating this.

                        Polarisation - both sides need to accept that there is no one easy answer to solve America's problem with gun violence. If there was a simple answer it would have been done by now. Gun control on its own wont do it. Mental health reform on its own wont do it. No other one measure on its own will do it.

                        Attitude to government. It seems there is a massive difference here between USA and Europe. You seem to see government as something imposed upon you to be kept as small as possible and not as something useful. In Europe government is generally seen as the servant of the population, there to carry out useful tasks like education, health, defence etc on behalf of the population. This is best expressed in the UK where the House of Commons, directly elected, is the ultimate sovereign body. It can over rule absolutely anything that any other branch of government does or has done should they chose to do so. The only thing it can't do is prevent its own dissolution and re election every 5 years.

                        It seems that there is a very simplistic view of "criminals" and everyone else. Legally owned weapons are sometimes used for crimes. illegal weapons are sometimes used for legal purposes. The situation is more complex and again I think sometimes both sides could do with acknowledging that.

                        You are also stuck in a vicious circle. I have no desire to own a gun simply because I don't feel threatened. As I said earlier I know of only one person that owns a gun. I don't know a single person that has ever been a victim of gun crime. Many of you want to keep your guns simply because gun crime is so rampant. I don't know how you easily break that.

                        Breaking vicious circles often involves having to do something which one or more party finds unpallatable. Look at every peace process that has ever happened.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          These discussions are getting more and more convoluted with every passing day - it would be funny if it wasn't such a serious subject.

                          Do we really want to have a debate on what "arms" means? In plain English, Arms is short for Armament - and yes, that includes cannons, missles, RPGs, swords, spears, pikes, etc. It's rather amusing to see someone upset with the idea that some may want to see some firearms banned from being owned by the general public because it would be an "infringement" of their right to bear arms parse the word arms to mean handguns, rifles and shotguns only, ignoring the much broader definition of arms. The US already "infringes" on the kinds of arms we can own - most people can never own a submachine gun (and to own one, you have to jump through some really incredible hoops), we can't own RPG's, and carrying a sword around in public will get you surrounded by police officers faster than a dozen donuts will. Check your state and local laws on the allowed length of fixed blade knives your allowed to carry, or see what they say about carrying a switchblade - these items meet the definition of "arms", but the NRA doesn't come to the defense of these, do they?

                          Mental Health? If we're going to use mental health as the dividing line over who can and can't carry, then there will be very few guns in the hands of people. Are you afraid of Snakes? Spiders? Heights? Flying? Trains? Clowns? Falling? Stairs? (etc. etc. etc.) - then you have a phobia, which is an anxiety disorder - a mental health issue. Are you afraid to walk the streets of the city, or the paths of a forest, without a gun? Then you have an anxiety disorder and shouldn't have a gun.

                          Shall we get to "Law-abiding" so that we keep the hands out of criminals? Do you habitually speed? The you aren't law-abiding - no gun you criminal you. Or are we going to parse which laws count and which laws we can break to determine who is law-abiding the way some are trying to parse which weapons are "arms" and which aren't?

                          I like Two-cubs idea that Beavah is consistently reminding us of, that liability insurance can be part of the solution. I like 3 out of 5 of Basement's original solution. It would be 4 out of 5 but instead of a national registry, I'd prefer a state registry which can be accessed, cross-checked and matched between states. If you're afraid this will just lead to the government taking away your guns, then you're paranoid, a mental health disorder, and shouldn't have guns in the first place. New Orleans may have taken guns in the wake of the hurricane, but the courts ruled very firmly that New Orleans was wrong to do so and ordered them to return the guns (whether they were successfully able to do so is another story). That's exactly how our system is set up - and it worked just perfectly - if you're going to wave the Constitutiona around to insist on your sacrosanct rights, then you have to trust that the Constitutional process will work.

                          Illinois requires gun owners to have a Firearm Owner's Identification card (FOID). I have one. I'd have no problem with the state requiring me to pay for a complete background check every other year, and a mental health evaluation every other year as part of a scheme to renew my FOID card. Heck, I get a physical once a year, it's time we grew up as a society and included mental health check-ups as preventive health measures.

                          I have no problem with a generalized ban on semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines or with a capacity greater than 10 rounds with some narrow exceptions. I'd be fine with certain classes of disabled people having a semi-automatic in order to hunt - but they better involve loss of limb or limb function. We already ban the general ownership of fully automatic weapons - and any skilled internet user can find instructions on how to convert your semi-automatic weapon into a full automatic weapon.

                          Enough with the "Red Dawn" fantasies about taking on a corrupt government with your M-16 look-a-likes. Enough with the "if only people had guns" fantasies - there has yet to be a mass shooting stopped by an armed, non-LEO trained, civilian who saved the day by pulling their gun and shooting the shooter. Frankly, those that say "if only" are nothing more than arm chair heroes who get good scores on their shoot-em-up video games. Enough with the "Hitler disarmed his country" lies - he did disarm the Jews, but he encouraged the Aryans to take up arms - he didn't disarm the entire country. We rarely hear from those "look to history" folks that he disarmed a portion, and a very small portion at that, of the population - they always claim he disarmed the entire country. No more pulling out the "guns prevent 10,000 (100,000, 2 million) crimes per year" statistic that can never be proven because the incidents are never, mysteriously, reported to the police (what, are you afraid the police are going to take away your gun if you call them to tell them you waved your gun and chased off a mugger?). People love to tell stories - its really interesting to go to a small town diner at breakfast and hear someone say they went to the big city the week before and had to wave their gun around because it looked like someone was going to mug them, and watch all the folks around them mumble and nod as if it must be true (while the waitress is rolling her eyes because she knows the guy had lunch and dinner at the diner the day he said he was in the big city). Anyone who has ever been in a small town tavern during hunting season can hear all kinds of stories about the ones that got away. In other words, stop repeating the BS as if it actually means something. No one but true believers believe that bunch of bull, and if you do believe it, then you may be suffering from delusions yourself, a mental health issue that should keep guns out of your hands.

                          Enough with the urban core has more gun violence whining unless you're ready to talk about how to solve it. We can easily say the rural areas have more hunting accidents too, but it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. We can eliminate most urban shootings by legalizing drugs and pulling them out of the realm of criminality and into the realm of consumerism. Don't even think about talking about gangs - if your view of gangs has anything to do with 1980's and 1990's movies about bloods, crips, kings, etc. then you are woefully behind the times - these gangs are starting to fall apart as the gangs become more and more concentrated - at one time, most cities had just a few gangs, controlling large swaths of territory - today's gangs? Most are now neighborhood based, "controlling" a block, or maybe two, or one apartment complex - instead of large gangs, we now have micro-gangs - and of course shootings increase because instead of one gang controlling 50 blocks, you know have 50 gangs controlling 50 individual blocks and they are shooting at each other when 10 years ago, they would have been in the same gang.

                          Is the banning of semi-automatic weapons just a "feel good" thing that's not really going to make a difference? Yeah, probably it is. But you know what? It doesn't matter if it works or not. What matters is how people see the various factions, or if people see if something is being tried. Right now, the 2nd amendment absolutists are losing public opinion - because they aren't seen as being reasonable in the face of pure horror. The gun control folks are being seen as at least willing to try something, anything to stop these things.

                          Click gives us the perfect example in the pro-gun folks rigid thinking with this:

                          "Me: The Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
                          Pro Gun Control Person(PGCP): (insert favorite pro gun control talking point)
                          Me: But the Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
                          PGCP: (insert second favorite pro gun control talking point)
                          Me: But the Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
                          PGCP: (insert third favorite pro gun control talking point)
                          Me: You really don't care what the Constitution states?
                          PGCP: Guns are evil"


                          Let me show you what is driving me, and many folks like me, on this issue - I'll take the part of PGCP:

                          "Me: The Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
                          Pro Gun Control Person(PGCP): "Is your right to plink at soda cans with a 30-round semiautomatic weapon greater than the rights of 20 kids who still believed in Santa Claus not to be killed by a maniac with a semi-automatic weapon days before Christmas?"
                          Me: But the Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
                          PGCP: "Is your right to plink at soda cans with a 30-round semiautomatic weapon greater than the rights of 20 kids who still believed in Santa Claus not to be killed by a maniac with a semi-automatic weapon days before Christmas?"
                          Me: But the Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
                          PGCP: "Is your right to plink at soda cans with a 30-round semiautomatic weapon greater than the rights of 20 kids who still believed in Santa Claus not to be killed by a maniac with a semi-automatic weapon days before Christmas?"
                          Me: You really don't care what the Constitution states?
                          PGCP: "Is your right to plink at soda cans with a 30-round semiautomatic weapon greater than the rights of 20 kids who still believed in Santa Claus not to be killed by a maniac with a semi-automatic weapon days before Christmas?"

                          If you're really going to care what the Constitution states, then learn what the Constitution really states. Pay attention to what Beavah has to say - he has a bit more education on it than most of us. You can't argue that the government can't ban some weapons as an infringement while it's banning other weapons that you agree should not be in people's hands - and as has been pointed out, the Constitution doesn't specify exactly what arms are allowed or not, which, given that Congress has the right and responsibility to make laws that enforce the Constitution, would seem to give Congress the right and responsibility to define that term as it sees fit. As long as Congress doesn't prevent you from keeping and bearing any arms, then the Second Amendment is still being honored. Every right has limits - the Second Amendment is not some special amendment that makes it the only absolute right in the Constitution.

                          Let's not forget, in all this durm und strang what's most important here. 20 kids, who still believed in Santa Claus, were killed by a maniac just days before Christmas. Hundreds of kids will never think of School as being a safe place again. An entire town will never think of Christmas in the same way. Emotional? You're gosh-darn-tooting it's emotional - and if you don't have the emotional capacity to understand that maybe, just maybe, your rights to plink at a can with a 30-round semi-automatic gun is just not the most important thing in this world, then perhaps you don't deserve to have guns in the first place.


                          Comment


                          • #88
                            I'm not going to address each point of the proposal, but can't resist one....
                            why limit rounds in a clip to 10?
                            why not 9?
                            why not 11?

                            No good reason for it, eh?
                            It's a number picked out of the air.

                            Any law or rule that is grounded in something like that, needs to go right back where it started..... thin air.
                            Just my opinion....

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Calico, I can say with great confidence that most, if not all, of those families still live in the abyss they were plunged into that day, an abyss that few of us can begin to fathom. And they will remain there for years, perhaps the rest of their lives.

                              The nutters, in response, are obscenely self-serving, the way they are reacting.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Calico your right.

                                The Semiauto ban won't work unless you collect everything that has been legally purchased. Then it probably won't make a difference in my lifetime and maybe my childrens life time, till all of the ones that have been horded away by the nutters are stolen, broken or turned in my families after they have passed away.


                                But it needs to start now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X