Printable View
I think that was the point of the article. I didn't see that article as blaming guns for the problems, but focusing on the types of people that are more likely to commit violent crime and taking steps to keeping them from (at least legally) obtaining a weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder71
Whether or not I agree with their strategy is a different story.
The author of that piece is one Daniel W. Webster; a dedicated antigunner in the mold of Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein.
This says it all: Editor's note: Daniel W. Webster is professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
What this gun owner wants is simple:
(a) admission by everyone that the second amendment is the law of the land, and
(b) elimination of every federal, state, and local gun law that violates the second amendment.
I know, I know, it's just a pleasant fantasy...
I want the words "SHALL NOT"...to mean what it says.
I want anything that is contradictory to "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to be struck down as unconstitutional.
Background checks? Whats is Constitutional about proving innocence just to buy a gun?
Are we not innocent until proven guilty in this country?
If we are, then why must we undergo a background check that proves we are innocent?
If you dont think it works that way, try buying a gun from a dealer without it and see how far you get.
Why should I have to be liscenced by the Feds to sell a gun? Why should I have to pay to do it? Why should I have to pay 500 a year to sell a "special class" of weapons?
Why all the paperwork?
Why all the BS regulation and registration?
It all boils down to one thing. Control.
The Feds want to know, so that if the time comes for them to take your guns, they will have the means to do so.
History proves this, over and over again.
There is NO other reason and if you dont think so, then you are part of the problem and one of the people that want Government Control of your life, whether you know it or not.
Some people want to be controlled and told what to do and how to do it.
I am not one of them.
The real question should be, "What do the anti-gunners want?" More laws that common sense has proven are ineffective and serve only to criminalize law-abiding citizens. It never was about guns, it's always been about the mental health of America. It's just easier for liberal politicians to pass laws that they know have no chance of stopping criminals and whack-jobs, than it is to address the declining mental health of the sick generation. It gets easier every day to prove our elected officials are part of the problem!
What they don't tell you is that the homicide rate in England has gone straight UP since firearms were, effectively, outlawed. And the homicide rate is still going up.Quote:
Originally Posted by surferbum
Not a single post in the whole thread mentioning that had the local sheriff (Dupnik) done his job, Jared Loughner would not have been able to legally buy any firearms from a gun store. Nor does CNN mention it. Plenty of people called in on Loughner, Dupnik did nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kapnketel
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgrass101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbiesdad
You caught that too, huh? Hmmmmmm...........Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbiesdad
What amazes me is with the mass of data showing that stiffer gun control doesn't deter violent crime, that people in government still think we need more gun control. Almost all of the data comes from government sources. This is no secret. It's almost as if they some other agenda..... hmmmm.....
The data are logical, but anti-gunners use emotion, not logic. Being armed in self-defense to counter potential armed threats is logical---therefore arguments to the contrary cannot be logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormin1155
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anubis
I am fine with NICS checks on all people who do not have a ccw or other forms of background checks. I saw the Bloomberg report where fake buyer told the seller I probably can't pass a background check and the seller still sold. This may or may not be a representative sample, but why not require a check or a ccw license? My concern is opening the floodgates of ridiculous legislation.