"instead, work to enforce the more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books. "Yep..that's a lot of gun laws. Like I read yesterday..."Laws don't protect you, they say what will happen when they are broken."
We just need more laws and regulations. Hey I have an idea...... lets make a law so it is illegal for crazy people to steel guns and kill people. Yep that will fix the problem.
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
Assult weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore any US citizen who believes that they need to have assault weapons to prevent the Government from taking their guns away has lost all faith in our form of government, and is either a criminal or a paranoid wingnut. Additionally, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they also stated that gun ownership can be regulated, and that regulation is long overdue.
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore any US citizen who believes that they need to have assault weapons to prevent the Government from taking their guns away has lost all faith in our form of government, and is either a criminal or a paranoid wingnut. Additionally, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they also stated that gun ownership can be regulated, and that regulation is long overdue.
How would you define "assault weapon"? Do you carry a weapon?
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore any US citizen who believes that they need to have assault weapons to prevent the Government from taking their guns away has lost all faith in our form of government, and is either a criminal or a paranoid wingnut. Additionally, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they also stated that gun ownership can be regulated, and that regulation is long overdue.
How would you define "assault weapon"? Do you carry a weapon?
It doesn't matter how I would define assault weapon. Our lawmakers will do that. Enough is enough. It is long past time for this battlefield slaughter in our schools and our movie houses and our public places to end.
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore any US citizen who believes that they need to have assault weapons to prevent the Government from taking their guns away has lost all faith in our form of government, and is either a criminal or a paranoid wingnut. Additionally, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they also stated that gun ownership can be regulated, and that regulation is long overdue.
How would you define "assault weapon"? Do you carry a weapon?
It doesn't matter how I would define assault weapon. Our lawmakers will do that. Enough is enough. It is long past time for this battlefield slaughter in our schools and our movie houses and our public places to end.
I see. They'll tell us what an assault weapon is after they sign the bill. And what happened in all those incidents you mention was not a battlefield because only one side was armed. Now, if someone with a concealed weapon was in that audience? Or even if the attackers believed someone could shoot back? It probably wouldn't have happened.
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And you shouldnt have access to the internet because it was designed for the dept of defense not public use.
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And you shouldnt have access to the internet because it was designed for the dept of defense not public use.
Until Al Gore proposed and initiated legislation that made it avaliable for commercial and public use. Besides, nobody has ever walked into a school or a movie theatre or a political rally and used the internet to kill dozens of people in a few minutes.
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore any US citizen who believes that they need to have assault weapons to prevent the Government from taking their guns away has lost all faith in our form of government, and is either a criminal or a paranoid wingnut. Additionally, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they also stated that gun ownership can be regulated, and that regulation is long overdue.
How would you define "assault weapon"? Do you carry a weapon?
It doesn't matter how I would define assault weapon. Our lawmakers will do that. Enough is enough. It is long past time for this battlefield slaughter in our schools and our movie houses and our public places to end.
I see. They'll tell us what an assault weapon is after they sign the bill. And what happened in all those incidents you mention was not a battlefield because only one side was armed. Now, if someone with a concealed weapon was in that audience? Or even if the attackers believed someone could shoot back? It probably wouldn't have happened.
I wonder what a licensed mental health professional would think of that response.
I wonder how one of the parents of any one of the murdered children in Newtown would respond to that.
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And you shouldnt have access to the internet because it was designed for the dept of defense not public use.
Until Al Gore proposed and initiated legislation that made it avaliable for commercial and public use. Besides, nobody has ever walked into a school or a movie theatre or a political rally and used the internet to kill dozens of people in a few minutes.
And likewise AR's are also legal thanks to smart legislators. By the way, how many people did Timothy McVeigh kill (without any guns at all)...... answer is 168 so why didnt we outlaw trucks, diesel and fertilizer?
As you are well aware, NOTHING in proposed legislation would have prevented Newtown. Just as nothing will prevent the next McVeigh. You cant fix deranged people just deal with it.
Everyone in my unit for two deployments was armed..pistols, rifles and automatic weapons. None of them shot each other, and I PROMISE you it's not because they are all of high morals. Walk in to a building down range and start shooting, and see how far you get...The Fort Hood shooting would have been over REAL quick if those soldiers had been armed.Jim had a point I liked. That kid that brought a shotgun to school and shot the bully? Nobody wants to ban shotguns..
Why can't they be outlawed for the general population and if you want one you can serve in any branch of the military (including reserves and coast guard), get a job as a police officer, or approve of a lengthy psychological background check with multiple follow ups and mandatory 6 month training before acquiring said gun? I think every single anti-gun person would be ok with this as a solution.
On the legislation thing:
Why is it that in order to get a device that was intend to move you from one place to another you need to have to pass 2 tests, have 6 months of monitored training from someone who already had a license, apply and pay for insurance in case you do damage with said device and that license needs to be renewed in most states every 3 years, BUT in my state all i have to go is get a base background check to make sure i am not a felon to legally buy a device whose sole design was to injure and kill?
That is one thing that makes no sense to me.....why does it seem that it has to be all or nothing with antigun nuts and gun rights activist?
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore any US citizen who believes that they need to have assault weapons to prevent the Government from taking their guns away has lost all faith in our form of government, and is either a criminal or a paranoid wingnut. Additionally, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they also stated that gun ownership can be regulated, and that regulation is long overdue.
How would you define "assault weapon"? Do you carry a weapon?
It doesn't matter how I would define assault weapon. Our lawmakers will do that. Enough is enough. It is long past time for this battlefield slaughter in our schools and our movie houses and our public places to end.
I see. They'll tell us what an assault weapon is after they sign the bill. And what happened in all those incidents you mention was not a battlefield because only one side was armed. Now, if someone with a concealed weapon was in that audience? Or even if the attackers believed someone could shoot back? It probably wouldn't have happened.
I wonder what a licensed mental health professional would think of that response.
I wonder how one of the parents of any one of the murdered children in Newtown would respond to that.
I think they would respond that if the principle or a teacher had had a weapon, their child my still be f'ing alive.
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore any US citizen who believes that they need to have assault weapons to prevent the Government from taking their guns away has lost all faith in our form of government, and is either a criminal or a paranoid wingnut. Additionally, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they also stated that gun ownership can be regulated, and that regulation is long overdue.
How would you define "assault weapon"? Do you carry a weapon?
It doesn't matter how I would define assault weapon. Our lawmakers will do that. Enough is enough. It is long past time for this battlefield slaughter in our schools and our movie houses and our public places to end.
I see. They'll tell us what an assault weapon is after they sign the bill. And what happened in all those incidents you mention was not a battlefield because only one side was armed. Now, if someone with a concealed weapon was in that audience? Or even if the attackers believed someone could shoot back? It probably wouldn't have happened.
I wonder what a licensed mental health professional would think of that response.
I wonder how one of the parents of any one of the murdered children in Newtown would respond to that.
I think they would respond that if the principle or a teacher had had a weapon, their child my still be f'ing alive.
I think you should go to Newtown and tell the husband of the murdered Principal exactly that.
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore any US citizen who believes that they need to have assault weapons to prevent the Government from taking their guns away has lost all faith in our form of government, and is either a criminal or a paranoid wingnut. Additionally, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they also stated that gun ownership can be regulated, and that regulation is long overdue.
How would you define "assault weapon"? Do you carry a weapon?
It doesn't matter how I would define assault weapon. Our lawmakers will do that. Enough is enough. It is long past time for this battlefield slaughter in our schools and our movie houses and our public places to end.
I see. They'll tell us what an assault weapon is after they sign the bill. And what happened in all those incidents you mention was not a battlefield because only one side was armed. Now, if someone with a concealed weapon was in that audience? Or even if the attackers believed someone could shoot back? It probably wouldn't have happened.
I wonder what a licensed mental health professional would think of that response.
I wonder how one of the parents of any one of the murdered children in Newtown would respond to that.
I think they would respond that if the principle or a teacher had had a weapon, their child my still be f'ing alive.
I think you should go to Newtown and tell the husband of the murdered Principal exactly that.
Why ban "assault rifles"? What ia an assualt rifle? A rifle that kills someone? This is silly. A person with a pistol can cause as much damage as on e with an AR. And it can be concealed better. More laws do not fix the problems, because criminals do not abide by them. Anything can be bought illegally, so, all you are going to do is punish the other 98% that follow the laws. I don't think the government is coming for me, I think its the criminal who wants my wallet, car, or posessions. Thats why I own and keep guns.
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore any US citizen who believes that they need to have assault weapons to prevent the Government from taking their guns away has lost all faith in our form of government, and is either a criminal or a paranoid wingnut. Additionally, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they also stated that gun ownership can be regulated, and that regulation is long overdue.
How would you define "assault weapon"? Do you carry a weapon?
It doesn't matter how I would define assault weapon. Our lawmakers will do that. Enough is enough. It is long past time for this battlefield slaughter in our schools and our movie houses and our public places to end.
I see. They'll tell us what an assault weapon is after they sign the bill. And what happened in all those incidents you mention was not a battlefield because only one side was armed. Now, if someone with a concealed weapon was in that audience? Or even if the attackers believed someone could shoot back? It probably wouldn't have happened.
I wonder what a licensed mental health professional would think of that response.
I wonder how one of the parents of any one of the murdered children in Newtown would respond to that.
I think they would respond that if the principle or a teacher had had a weapon, their child my still be f'ing alive.
I think you should go to Newtown and tell the husband of the murdered Principal exactly that.
You don't think that it has crossed his mind? That if she had a weapon, she could have defended herself? Do you own a weapon for protection?
Assault weapons belong on the battlefield, because that's what they were designed for, not in the general population of a civil society, unless you want your society to become a bloody battlefield.
And when the government comes for the citizen's guns, the people will have the weapons to win on that bloody battlefield. I see that you are an enforcement officer. Do you carry a weapon?
The US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore any US citizen who believes that they need to have assault weapons to prevent the Government from taking their guns away has lost all faith in our form of government, and is either a criminal or a paranoid wingnut. Additionally, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they also stated that gun ownership can be regulated, and that regulation is long overdue.
How would you define "assault weapon"? Do you carry a weapon?
It doesn't matter how I would define assault weapon. Our lawmakers will do that. Enough is enough. It is long past time for this battlefield slaughter in our schools and our movie houses and our public places to end.
I see. They'll tell us what an assault weapon is after they sign the bill. And what happened in all those incidents you mention was not a battlefield because only one side was armed. Now, if someone with a concealed weapon was in that audience? Or even if the attackers believed someone could shoot back? It probably wouldn't have happened.
I wonder what a licensed mental health professional would think of that response.
I wonder how one of the parents of any one of the murdered children in Newtown would respond to that.
I think they would respond that if the principle or a teacher had had a weapon, their child my still be f'ing alive.
I think you should go to Newtown and tell the husband of the murdered Principal exactly that.
You don't think that it has crossed his mind? That if she had a weapon, she could have defended herself? Do you own a weapon for protection?
This should answer your question, JDH. Here is a fathers response to his child's death at a school killing. STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!
Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On
Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel
Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School
shootings in Littleton , Colorado , was invited to
address the House Judiciary Committee's
subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders
during this special session of Congress was
painfully truthful.
They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor
was it received well. It needs to be heard by
every parent, every teacher, every politician,
every sociologist, every psychologist, and every
so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by
Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and
deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent
this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The
following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both
good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all
contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of
violence. The death of my wonderful daughter,
Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic
teacher, and the other eleven children who died
must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for
answers.
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain
slew his brother Abel out in the field. The
villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it
the NCA, the National Club Association. The true
killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder
could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy,
I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be
pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a
member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not
even own a gun. I am not here to represent or
defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they
are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore
I do not believe that they need to be defended. If
I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's
murder I would be their strongest opponent
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not
just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that
should be forcing us to look at where the real
blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this
room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing
fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem
just four nights ago that expresses my feelings
best.
Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!
"Men and women are three-part beings. We all
consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse
to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we
create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and
hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual
presences were present within our educational
systems for most of our nation's history. Many of
our major colleges began as theological
seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has
happened to us as a nation? We have refused to
honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to
hatred and violence. And when something as
terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs --
politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such
as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more
restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our
personal and private liberties. We do not need
more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not
have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of
gun laws can stop someone who spends months
planning this type of massacre. The real villain
lies within our own hearts.
"As my son Craig lay under that table in the
school library and saw his two friends murdered
before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray
in school. I defy any law or politician to deny
him that right! I challenge every young person in
America , and around the world, to realize that on
April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer
was brought back to our schools. Do not let the
many prayers offered by those students be in vain.
Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred
disregard for legislation that violates your
God-given right to communicate with Him. To those
of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I
give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine
your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young
people of this country will not allow that to
happen!"
Everything this guy did was already illegal. Why would making it Super Duper Double Secret Illegal stop him? Also, for an example of not only high gun ownership, but high assault weapon ownership, why not look at the Swiss. Guns don't do this. People do. I will agree there must be something particularly screwed up in the US that makes our murder rate so high... but gun ownership is not a root cause.
Everything this guy did was already illegal. Why would making it Super Duper Double Secret Illegal stop him? Also, for an example of not only high gun ownership, but high assault weapon ownership, why not look at the Swiss. Guns don't do this. People do. I will agree there must be something particularly screwed up in the US that makes our murder rate so high... but gun ownership is not a root cause.
All of the male swiss 20 years of age and up are required to go through boot camp and military training. Plus are all reserves until the age of 30. On top of that you have to have a special permit to have ammo for those guns that they own. Most can only use the guns for sport in a range.
If you want to implement that in the US then go for it. I think 10 years is plenty of time to figure out if a person should have a gun or not and not allowing people to have ammo for that gun unless they are in a range then lets do it.
Guns are a part of the way of life there because the military service is mandatory. Way different than the weekend warriors here who like to play war but the majority of which haven't even seen the inside of a recruitment station much less been through basic training (i am neither. only gun i own is a rifle of my grandfathers. I won't own a handgun or anything else because I don't have the training to have one in my house.)
Everything this guy did was already illegal. Why would making it Super Duper Double Secret Illegal stop him? Also, for an example of not only high gun ownership, but high assault weapon ownership, why not look at the Swiss. Guns don't do this. People do. I will agree there must be something particularly screwed up in the US that makes our murder rate so high... but gun ownership is not a root cause.
All of the male swiss 20 years of age and up are required to go through boot camp and military training. Plus are all reserves until the age of 30. On top of that you have to have a special permit to have ammo for those guns that they own. Most can only use the guns for sport in a range.
If you want to implement that in the US then go for it. I think 10 years is plenty of time to figure out if a person should have a gun or not and not allowing people to have ammo for that gun unless they are in a range then lets do it.
Guns are a part of the way of life there because the military service is mandatory. Way different than the weekend warriors here who like to play war but the majority of which haven't even seen the inside of a recruitment station much less been through basic training (i am neither. only gun i own is a rifle of my grandfathers. I won't own a handgun or anything else because I don't have the training to have one in my house.)
I agree completely that culture plays a lot into it. I was just attempting to show that ease of gun access != increases in mass shootings.
Everything this guy did was already illegal. Why would making it Super Duper Double Secret Illegal stop him? Also, for an example of not only high gun ownership, but high assault weapon ownership, why not look at the Swiss. Guns don't do this. People do. I will agree there must be something particularly screwed up in the US that makes our murder rate so high... but gun ownership is not a root cause.
All of the male swiss 20 years of age and up are required to go through boot camp and military training. Plus are all reserves until the age of 30. On top of that you have to have a special permit to have ammo for those guns that they own. Most can only use the guns for sport in a range.
If you want to implement that in the US then go for it. I think 10 years is plenty of time to figure out if a person should have a gun or not and not allowing people to have ammo for that gun unless they are in a range then lets do it.
Guns are a part of the way of life there because the military service is mandatory. Way different than the weekend warriors here who like to play war but the majority of which haven't even seen the inside of a recruitment station much less been through basic training (i am neither. only gun i own is a rifle of my grandfathers. I won't own a handgun or anything else because I don't have the training to have one in my house.)
I agree completely that culture plays a lot into it. I was just attempting to show that ease of gun access != increases in mass shootings.
Thanks brianetz1 for reminding us of the differences between our society and the Swiss regarding gun ownership. I would also venture to add that if military service was mandantory, I would bet my house that people would not be acting this way with firearms in the US today, because the general population would have a lot more respect for these firearms, and a lot more respect for our government
Additionally, in the 1930's very strict regulations were placed on the ownership of machine guns, and those regulations were very successful in removing those wepons from our civil society (where they do not belong), and I don't remember reading anywhere or hearing from anyone that the US government became a nazicommie dictatorship because machine guns were regulated. I think it would be advisable for everyone to review the requirements of those regulations, and quit all this stupid screaming about tyrany and the loss of freedom. The only ones who will loose anything if these weapons are regulated and (hopefully) removed from circulation will be the gun manufactureres because their profits will go down.
One more thing - you all ought to read Scalia's opinion in the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment. The door for regulating firearms has been left wide open, and when it goes back to the Supremes, the regulations will be upheld. Of course, the NRA isn't telling you that because it's in their $$$$$$$$$$ interests for guns to not be regulated, so they constantly feed irrational paranoia and whip a bunch of people into a frenzy and threaten Congress, and stirr up a lot of hate so their profits will keep on rolling in.
At least we can have swords....for now. Those only belong on the battlefield
Anyone who wants access to these military weapons can have it. All they have to do is join the "well regulated militia" (see the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment) also known as the National Guard, or any of the other branches of the Armed Forces of the United States. That's where these weapons belong, not among the general population.
At least we can have swords....for now. Those only belong on the battlefield
Anyone who wants access to these military weapons can have it. All they have to do is join the "well regulated militia" (see the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment) also known as the National Guard, or any of the other branches of the Armed Forces of the United States. That's where these weapons belong, not among the general population.
At least we can have swords....for now. Those only belong on the battlefield
Anyone who wants access to these military weapons can have it. All they have to do is join the "well regulated militia" (see the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment) also known as the National Guard, or any of the other branches of the Armed Forces of the United States. That's where these weapons belong, not among the general population.
So, what's the deal with whether it has a pistol grip or common grip? Attitude?
jj20030
Posts: 5,804 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
I wonder how one of the parents of any one of the murdered children in Newtown would respond to that.
As you are well aware, NOTHING in proposed legislation would have prevented Newtown. Just as nothing will prevent the next McVeigh. You cant fix deranged people just deal with it.
Why can't they be outlawed for the general population and if you want one you can serve in any branch of the military (including reserves and coast guard), get a job as a police officer, or approve of a lengthy psychological background check with multiple follow ups and mandatory 6 month training before acquiring said gun? I think every single anti-gun person would be ok with this as a solution.
On the legislation thing:
Why is it that in order to get a device that was intend to move you from one place to another you need to have to pass 2 tests, have 6 months of monitored training from someone who already had a license, apply and pay for insurance in case you do damage with said device and that license needs to be renewed in most states every 3 years, BUT in my state all i have to go is get a base background check to make sure i am not a felon to legally buy a device whose sole design was to injure and kill?
That is one thing that makes no sense to me.....why does it seem that it has to be all or nothing with antigun nuts and gun rights activist?
Here is a fathers response to his child's death at a school killing.
STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!
Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton , Colorado , was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.
They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.
Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!
"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.
"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott
Regarding the Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) that ran from 1994 to 2004.... remember that one? Well.... do you also remember Columbine?
That happened in 1999...... kind of proof that the AWB is not effective.
Why not focus on jobs and spending (like the campaign promised...... JOBS number one priority... yeah right)
If you want to implement that in the US then go for it. I think 10 years is plenty of time to figure out if a person should have a gun or not and not allowing people to have ammo for that gun unless they are in a range then lets do it.
Guns are a part of the way of life there because the military service is mandatory. Way different than the weekend warriors here who like to play war but the majority of which haven't even seen the inside of a recruitment station much less been through basic training (i am neither. only gun i own is a rifle of my grandfathers. I won't own a handgun or anything else because I don't have the training to have one in my house.)
Additionally, in the 1930's very strict regulations were placed on the ownership of machine guns, and those regulations were very successful in removing those wepons from our civil society (where they do not belong), and I don't remember reading anywhere or hearing from anyone that the US government became a nazicommie dictatorship because machine guns were regulated. I think it would be advisable for everyone to review the requirements of those regulations, and quit all this stupid screaming about tyrany and the loss of freedom. The only ones who will loose anything if these weapons are regulated and (hopefully) removed from circulation will be the gun manufactureres because their profits will go down.
One more thing - you all ought to read Scalia's opinion in the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment. The door for regulating firearms has been left wide open, and when it goes back to the Supremes, the regulations will be upheld. Of course, the NRA isn't telling you that because it's in their $$$$$$$$$$ interests for guns to not be regulated, so they constantly feed irrational paranoia and whip a bunch of people into a frenzy and threaten Congress, and stirr up a lot of hate so their profits will keep on rolling in.
Only in America.