Should more be done to prevent crazy people from attaining firearms? I know the 2nd amendment protects the right to bear arms. (by the way, who would ever have a need for bear arms?) Anyway... I agree that everyone should have a right to have guns. But when does it become a little too much? Why does anyone need assault rifles? I mean the British aren't exactly in our backyards anymore. This isn't the wild west. I know that most people like to think that because they have guns they will be safe, but get real.... Let's say that everyone in the crowd in Arizona was armed. How many more people would be dead? Hasn't gun collecting turned into a vice? How is it that pot is illegal, but crazy people and just about anyone can buy guns? It's a little different in the South because children are taught the importance of gun safety and how to properly use a gun when they are small, because of hunting. Should there be better laws to keep guns out of crazy people's hands, and even more strict gun laws, when people get caught with them who shouldn't own them? Don't think that the liberal socialist here is trying to advocate everyone's guns being taken away, because that isn't the case.
Well.. this should end up an interesting thread. First, I'd like to say that the term "assault weapon" is just bullch!t, and about as useless as the term "hate crime", which is also bullch!t.. Jack Ruby killed Oswald with a wheel gun (that's revolver for you non-gun types).. I'd bet you my last dollar that Oswald felt pretty phucking assaulted as the bullets tore through his flesh. Incidentally, they were both the same race, but I'd bet Oswald felt hated at that moment... "Assault weapon" now days, is just a term used to further an agenda. As George Carlin said, "It's all bullsh!t folks, and it's bad for ya.".. Bottom line, when a hot piece of lead traveling at a thousand+ feet/second pierces your body it's going to do damage. Depending on what is hit, you may live or die. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it was fired from an "assault" rife or not, as if there were such a thing. You don't ever hear that someone was killed by a gunshot, but they were not only dead, they were "assault" dead... Even deader than dead. I don't care if it's a single-shot rifle, or fully automatic with a grenade launcher. It's not the guns that kill people, it's the azzholes that aim at other people and pull the trigger. And a bullet from a so-called "assault rifle" will make you no more dead than Billy-Bob's 30-06 "hunting" rifle, or a well placed shot from a .22 caliber rifle. Dead is dead, laws be damned. As for making it more difficult for wacko's to get them, that won't do anything. We've seen it time and time again; the gov't can make as many laws as they want. It doesn't matter, because they're too inept to enforce them when it count. All more laws will affect, is the people who actually obey them. Stupid, crazy, criminally insane @ssholes generally don't fall into this category. There's laws against owning pot.. how are there any people around smoking it if it's illegal?? After all, the law says it's illegal and nobody should have it or be able to get it, so how is it possible that people still smoke it? All of this being said, I do agree with you in concept regarding stricter enforcement of existing laws. But creating new ones will only accomplish two things: a) Add to the bloated list of laws that our inept government can't seem to enforce. b) Make it more difficult for those that DO abide by the law to protect themselves and their families.
Gun laws are just about as pointless as drug laws. If someone wants a gun they are going to get a gun.
That's true, but, should there be harsher penalties for people caught with guns that shouldn't have them?
How do you define people who shouldn't have them? Swerved made excellent points, just enforce the existing laws. It doesn't matter if the gun is for personal protection or for plinking or for just standing it in the corner. We have the right.
Who cares what it's for? Is marijuana really a medicinal solution for some people, or is it just the excuse that NORML likes to use? See where I'm going with this? It's got nothing to do with the word "protection".. It's got more to do with peoples' individual rights to own the firearms, whether that be as a collector, hunter, or someone who wants to protect their family and property, etc... It doesn't matter. This concept, I don't have as much of a problem with. As I said before, enforce the laws on the books. The only problem is, the government has proven itself incompetent time and time again when it comes to enforcing its own policies. Perhaps if they start handing out criminal punishment to those that drop the ball on background checks, maybe that would have an effect. Just a thought.
gun owner here. and they are my guns. if they ever need to be used in this house, it is pretty much understood that if i am here, i will be the one to use one because i am the better shot. by far. and my attitude is i couldnt shoot bambi, but if i feel threatened, it will be two to the heart, one to the head. that said, there is one area i have a problem with. armor piercing bullets. seems to me the only reason for them is to kill cops. your average burglar/kick the door in criminal isnt going to be wearing a bullet proof vest. i do have a problem with that type of ammo being available. and this comes from someone with hollow points loaded in her .38.
Anyone who is convicted of any violent crime, including domestic abuse. Anyone who cannot pass some sort of mental evaluation.
Gotta love a woman who appreciates the double-tap and the concept of effectively neutralizing the threat.. :thumb:
