A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Until this country goes back to locking up the crazies, it makes no sense to do anything.  Eliminate guns, they will build fertilizer bombs.  Eliminate fertilizer, they will grab machettes. Eliminate machettes, they will use a car and mow people down.

    the problem is not the tool, the problem is the crazies.  For the most part, these crazies are known to people, counselors, parents, others, to be lit-fuse bombs.

    Let's start with solving this problem.




    Nobody wants to pay for it.  That's why the mental health facilities closed.

    Insurance gives short shrift to mental illness.  Why?  They don't want to pay for it.

    It doesn't help if there's no diagnosis.  And who does the screening, counseling and diagnosis?  (often a long process to warrant committal)  Repeat: nobody wants to pay for it.

    This is besides the fact that institutionalization doesn't work for most mental illnesses.

    Besides, tree stumps like you have convinced yourself liberalism, homosexuality and atheism are mental illnesses....

     

    Do you think about what you post before you post it?

     

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfilio. Show portfilio's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    What if ammunition purchases required the serial number and proof of ownership of the gun they are intended for?

    Assuming the technology exists, we could also require the ammunition manufacturers to include a serial number on the bullet that can be used by forensics to track a bullet back to the initial sale.

     

     




    Are you asking whether this is legal? If so, the answer lies in the Constitution's Commerce Clause"

     

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

    [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

     

    The US Supreme Court has ruled that Congress's power over commerce is virtually unlimited. This is further amplified by the Constitution's necessary and proper clause in Article I, section 8.

    Therefore, it is perfectly legal for Congress to impose such a law. Is it a good idea to do so and would it serve as a deterrent to crime or domestic terrorism?  We can only speculate.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    you are in the small government self reliance camp.

    unless you are in the big government nannystate camp.

     



    Sloganeering? Come on, now...  

     

     

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    laws that restrict Constitutional...rights

     



    The right is not unlimited. The Supreme Court made clear that reasonable restrictions are fine.

     

     

     

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

      My legal use of a gun isn't a problem, its the illegal uses of guns that are problems.

     

     

     

    And the regulations here discused would reduce illegal uses of guns.

    We already have laws against illegal possession, against murder. Clearly those laws aren't enough.

     

     

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    there are those who would disarm the nation like England.

     

     

     

    And since there's no way that's happening, citing it is either a red herring or a paranoid delusion, depending on your intent.

     

     

     

     

     

    At the end of the day, you haven't explained:

    - How the laws discussed here would prevent or even restrict your 'legal use'.

    - How government can't take your guns if you get an FID card, but can if you register your purchase.

     

     

    This isn't a legitimate concern. It appears all it comes down to is your initial idealogical sloganeering:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    you are in the small government self reliance camp.

    unless you are in the big government nannystate camp.

     

     

    The fears you expressed here are born only of the fact that you have labeled your opposition. That's why you haven't come up with logical bases of your fears.

    Just a vague paranoid "slippery slope" reference....and use of political curse words "big government nannystate camp".

     



    You keep brushing over my examples of fear and parallels to the concern of theslippery slope.

    I brought up an activist bench with ACA and Scotus as an example.  SCOTUS answered a question not asked to justify ACA when the big test was supposed to be the commerce clause.

    VT and NH addressed the same sex couple rights with civil unions and Mass knowing that same sex marriage wouldn't pass the legislation nor pass it referendum had an activtist bench enact same sex marriage.

    Activist benches can change a lot of things.

    The proposed regulations/laws would place considerable more burden and cost on me and maintain records I don't support and invade my privacy and still not effect people breaking the law.

    So I see registration as the first step to further restriction and confiscation; history shows us that its happened before.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    These suggestions might not have stopped Sandy Hook, but they would have helped in some mass shootings.  In Columbine, the guns were purchased illegally, and the ammo at a local K-Mart.  

    You don't know that. You really think illegal guns will dry up that quickly? Very naive.

     

    Some of the other legal firearm mass-shootings leave you scratching your head - how does a guy like the Sikh Temple shooter get to own a gun?  A guy dishonerably discharged from the Army, with DUIs and ties to white supremacy groups?  Maybe background checks should not just be pass / fail - if you have a guy who technically passes, but looks like trouble, maybe it's OK if he's in a separate category from the scared house-wife.  If a guy like that places an order for 10K rounds of ammo, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the authorities are on alert.

     

    Well, first off he received a "general discharge". Second, him belonging to white supremacy groups, while reprehensible, is not something that comes up on a background check. They look at the following:

    • Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
    • Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
    • Is a fugitive from justice
    • Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
    • Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
    • Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
    • Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
    • Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
    • Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
    • Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

    I hadn't read anywhere that he was CONVICTED of DUI's. Which is why he passed the bakcground check.  

     




     

    Illegal guns don't have to dry up quickly - just the ammo.  Most of these mass-shooters had stockpiles of thousands of rounds of legally purchased ammo.

    You don't have to believe it will help or not, but are you willing to simply to confirm that you legally own a gun when purchasing ammo, and being registered in a database where the store clerk or online vendor can verify your identity and the legality of the firearm?  That's all it means to you - no new bans, no new hoops to jump through.  Just an inconvenience less intrusive than getting a prescription for anti-biotics.

     



    Most of these mass shooters have legally purchased ammo?

    where did you come up with this fun fact? The Onion?

    somehow they illegally possessed guns, but their ammo is legal.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    The reason the left doesn't get it is that they are approaching the issue upside down.

    their argument stems from illogic.  the issue is not what should be illegal, but what should be legal.  This causes the left to focus on further focus on legal gun owners and what they are allowed.  That isn't the question, that isn't the problem.  The problem is illegal gun users and crazies.  Focus there, leave the rest of us alone, and stop treating us like we are one bad commute away from going postal.

    The standard is clear: I am allowed to own weaponry that meets my needs.  If I am in an area where criminals are known to have ar-15's, and it is a reasonable assumption that I am at risk, I am allowed to own an ar-15.  So, stop trying to undermine the standard that exists for legal gun owners.  Focus on stop and frisk, widening searches in areas where guns are being used illegally, I.etithe inner city.

    that's a proper approach to the issue.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

     

    Every time we pass a law to address a social concern someone's rights are clipped while others are often expanded.  I like my right to life and I value it more than your right to possess any deadly weapon that tickles your fancy.  And it is not just me, those kids that were killed and the future kids that will be killed and all the other innocent victims of gun violence deserved or deserve that right to life too.  We are already on a slippery slope in terms of gun violence.  Yet you don't seem to care.  Guns are more important... Property rights are more important than the right to life...

     



    The only problem is that any law that is being talked about being enacted wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook. Would a universal background check have prevented Sandy Hook? No, because the guns weren't the shooters. Would mental health background check have prevented the shooting? Again, no because the shooter didn't own the guns. Would requiring all guns to be registered nationally have prevented the shooting? Again, no. Would a new ban on assault rifles have prevented the shooting? Again, no...because the ban is on manufacturing assault rifles. The ban doesn't not take away guns already owned.

     

    Not to mention that majority of mass shootings have been done with non-assault weapons. So unless you plan on getting rid of all guns, make no mistake mass shootings will continue.

     




    So we should do nothing? Then what..? There has to be common sense..holistic solution that everyone can agree with. 80 percent of NRA members support stricter back ground checks. A stricter background check may have revealed that there was someone with a mental illness in the household..who clearly had access to the guns.

    No one is arguing that we need to address the mental health issues. Adam Lanza's mother was trying to have her son committed and she was getting very little support from the "professionals" who basically told her the system would not help until he was arrested for committing a crime. This is all too common..and there is something fundamentally wrong in that.

    That being said..would you agree that no one needs to own a bushmaster..? These things should not even be on the market.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Illegal guns don't have to dry up quickly - just the ammo.  Most of these mass-shooters had stockpiles of thousands of rounds of legally purchased ammo.

    You don't have to believe it will help or not, but are you willing to simply to confirm that you legally own a gun when purchasing ammo, and being registered in a database where the store clerk or online vendor can verify your identity and the legality of the firearm?  That's all it means to you - no new bans, no new hoops to jump through.  Just an inconvenience less intrusive than getting a prescription for anti-biotics.

     

    And what does a store clerk knowing you own a gun when purchasing ammo going to do exactly? I don't own a gun but I have purchased ammo to go shooting with my dad. What exactly would the clerk knowing whether I had a gun or not do to help with mass shootings???

    Oh and majority of mass shootings happened with LEGALLY purchased guns. 



    If the gun's not registered to you, and therefore proven lawfully acquired (Columbine, Seal Beach) you can't buy the ammo.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    The reason the left doesn't get it is that they are approaching the issue upside down.

    their argument stems from illogic.  the issue is not what should be illegal, but what should be legal.  This causes the left to focus on further focus on legal gun owners and what they are allowed.  That isn't the question, that isn't the problem.  The problem is illegal gun users and crazies.  Focus there, leave the rest of us alone, and stop treating us like we are one bad commute away from going postal.

    The standard is clear: I am allowed to own weaponry that meets my needs.  If I am in an area where criminals are known to have ar-15's, and it is a reasonable assumption that I am at risk, I am allowed to own an ar-15.  So, stop trying to undermine the standard that exists for legal gun owners.  Focus on stop and frisk, widening searches in areas where guns are being used illegally, I.etithe inner city.

    that's a proper approach to the issue.



    This is exactly what this proposal does - it makes life much, much harder for the illegal gun owner, with very little inconvenience to the legal gun owner.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    These suggestions might not have stopped Sandy Hook, but they would have helped in some mass shootings.  In Columbine, the guns were purchased illegally, and the ammo at a local K-Mart.  

    You don't know that. You really think illegal guns will dry up that quickly? Very naive.

     

    Some of the other legal firearm mass-shootings leave you scratching your head - how does a guy like the Sikh Temple shooter get to own a gun?  A guy dishonerably discharged from the Army, with DUIs and ties to white supremacy groups?  Maybe background checks should not just be pass / fail - if you have a guy who technically passes, but looks like trouble, maybe it's OK if he's in a separate category from the scared house-wife.  If a guy like that places an order for 10K rounds of ammo, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the authorities are on alert.

     

    Well, first off he received a "general discharge". Second, him belonging to white supremacy groups, while reprehensible, is not something that comes up on a background check. They look at the following:

    • Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
    • Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
    • Is a fugitive from justice
    • Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
    • Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
    • Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
    • Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
    • Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
    • Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
    • Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

    I hadn't read anywhere that he was CONVICTED of DUI's. Which is why he passed the bakcground check.  

     




     

    Illegal guns don't have to dry up quickly - just the ammo.  Most of these mass-shooters had stockpiles of thousands of rounds of legally purchased ammo.

    You don't have to believe it will help or not, but are you willing to simply to confirm that you legally own a gun when purchasing ammo, and being registered in a database where the store clerk or online vendor can verify your identity and the legality of the firearm?  That's all it means to you - no new bans, no new hoops to jump through.  Just an inconvenience less intrusive than getting a prescription for anti-biotics.

     

     



    Most of these mass shooters have legally purchased ammo?

     

    where did you come up with this fun fact? The Onion?

    somehow they illegally possessed guns, but their ammo is legal.




    What do you mean?  The Columbine shooters purchased ammo at K-Mart.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    These suggestions might not have stopped Sandy Hook, but they would have helped in some mass shootings.  In Columbine, the guns were purchased illegally, and the ammo at a local K-Mart.  The Seal Beach shooter had failed a background check, and was legally prohibited from owning fire-arms.

    Some of the other legal firearm mass-shootings leave you scratching your head - how does a guy like the Sikh Temple shooter get to own a gun?  A guy dishonerably discharged from the Army, with DUIs and ties to white supremacy groups?  Maybe background checks should not just be pass / fail - if you have a guy who technically passes, but looks like trouble, maybe it's OK if he's in a separate category from the scared house-wife.  If a guy like that places an order for 10K rounds of ammo, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the authorities are on alert.

     

     



    Until this country goes back to locking up the crazies, it makes no sense to do anything.  Eliminate guns, they will build fertilizer bombs.  Eliminate fertilizer, they will grab machettes. Eliminate machettes, they will use a car and mow people down.

     

    the problem is not the tool, the problem is the crazies.  For the most part, these crazies are known to people, counselors, parents, others, to be lit-fuse bombs.

    Let's start with solving this problem.

     



     

    OK - can we start by locking away anybody who won't register his / her gun because it might be needed in a standoff against the US government?

     




    The place to start is to institutionalize people who are a dnager to society.  No need to, once again, try to criminalize legal behavior, i.e. owning guns.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    if you factor out the inner city gun violence

     

    Why would I factor out the biggest target of the very laws I'm discussing?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Or, am I being too realistic?

     

    No, you are being your typical ankle-biting ret@rded self. Fortunately, the ignore button has returned. Bye again!

    Have fun trying to annoy-a-lib!




    Translation:  I'm being too realistic by suggesting we focus on a real problem instead of an imaginary one.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    But I'm not OK with a registry.

     


    Why not?

    A registry is absolutely essential to being able to prevent private sales that let the guns slip into criminals hands. There is literally no point to have things like background checks but no registry, because that would only catch a criminal who tries to buy a gun from a retailer.

    Which, as we have established, is not where they get their guns.

     

     

     

    Plus, did I mistake you or did you approve of opening up mental health information so that mentally unstable people can't buy guns?

    If so, it'd be quite bizarre. It'd be saying "my right to privacy in whether I own a gun is more important than the right to privacy of anyone who ever visited a shrink".

     



    Sorry, for the late reply.

     

    If you saw an earlier post of mine.  I'm OK with being required through a fire arms ID fully vetted; criminal, medical, mental to purchase.  

    You need an ID to buy booze but they don't take your name and what you bought.

    You need medical/mental health signoff to maintain a pilots license

    So a combination of these of OK for guns and ammo.

    Once the government tracks something they can come get it once they change the law, its a slippery slope concern.  So I maintain its none of their business.

    This type gun ID would slow down the movement of guns to the black market as unlicensed people couldn't feed the balck market unless thye broke the law and onece they broke the law they will eventually get caught.  Sting operations would be good for that.

     

     



     

    Ok, but I'm not talking about "government tracking" beyond that minimum: Registering each sale of gun & ammo.

    We don't need searches or harassment. Just the fact hanging over your head that if you're the last registered purchaser of a gun or ammo that ends up at a crime scene, you face criminal charges.

    That would severely cut into the flow of weapons into the black market. Over time, the black market supply would dry up as police seize weapons, as weapons are discarded post-crime, as weapons eventually break down.

    Yes, there is still some government monitoring. But it seems extremely minimal to me compared to the problem (most per capita gun violence on earth) and the importance of the privacy at interest.

     

     

    On that latter point: Unless you are criminally possessing a firearm, the government already knows you have at least one. You must have a permit or at the least an FID card. What, exactly, is threatened if they know not simply that you own a gun, but that it is a 0.38 ruger and that you bought it from Bob on Dec. 10, 2014?

     



    What is the threat from government if they know you own a gun?  you aren't serious in asking this question, are you?  Even my liberal professors in college complained that when Allende disarmed the people, he also ended up disarming the very people that could have defended him in the coup that occured after that confiscation.

    Look, it matters not what you think about what government might or might not do.  Simply put, the government does not have the right to the informaiton simply becasue they want it.  Norr do they have the right to infringe on that right simply because they have bigger, nastier guns.

    Do you really trust the government with such things?  Remember  that this is the same government that, when Bush was in charge, you schreeched like a squirrel being run over by a truck hauling logs, every time he tried to do anything.  Now, Obama in charge, no such worries.

    Newsflash:  government control over anything that you previously could do unencumbered precedes bad things happening.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    still not effect people breaking the law.

     

    Of course they will! Have you not been following?

    The point is NOT that the law criminalizing failure to register will "effect people breaking the law" directly. It's that it will make it way harder for those people to get guns in the first place!

     

     

    If I am going to be sent to jail for reselling a gun to someone without registering the sale, then I won't resell the gun to someone without registering the sale.

    If I register the sale, and that gun is linked to a no-suspect shooting, guess who the suspect is: The next buyer.

    The point is to cut off the flow of guns to the people who do end up using them illegally. Where do you think these people are getting the guns? Are they all stolen from gun shops? NO! They were once legal guns.

     

    And if I don't register the sale, and the gun is linked to a shooting, I'll be charged with a crime. The pressure will then be on me to rat out who I sold it to. That person will be the suspect in the shooting, or the guy who sold the gun again to the suspect.

    And so on.

    It provides a way to choke the flow of weapons from legal to black markets, with the added bonus that it provides a means to find out who committed shootings where the suspect isn't otherwise caught.

     

     

    So I see registration as the first step to further restriction and confiscation; history shows us that its happened before.

     

    In which country? Huh?

    Again, all I can see is paranoia, not logic, driving your fears about having to register your guns.

    Whether you have to register or not, if there is such a sea change in popular opinion that government comes for everyone's guns........the fact that you have an FID card, not a registration number, is not going to protect your guns.

    I really don't understand why you aren't grasping that part of things. If the world turns upside down, the 2nd Amd. is repealed, and government really does start confiscating all guns.....      

    ...it doesn't matter whether you have FID vs. registration!

    Did government raid everyone's house when prohibition went into effect? NO! They raided places suspected of continuing to serve booze. They checked suspicious cars.

    You'd be in the same position as an individual making bathtub gin during prohibition, regardless of FID or registration.....        sorry, that is not a logical slippery slope.

    But that isn't going to happen. See: Paranoia.



    It's really simple; if gun purchases are registered then the government knows where they are.  If the laws change; they look at the list and come get them.

    If there isn't a registry it's more like your prohibition example where they didn't knock on doors.

    I'm a very strong supporter of personal rights, and avoid government oversight whenever I can.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

     


    So we should do nothing? Then what..? There has to be common sense..holistic solution that everyone can agree with. 80 percent of NRA members support stricter back ground checks. A stricter background check may have revealed that there was someone with a mental illness in the household..who clearly had access to the guns.

     

    No one is arguing that we need to address the mental health issues. Adam Lanza's mother was trying to have her son committed and she was getting very little support from the "professionals" who basically told her the system would not help until he was arrested for committing a crime. This is all too common..and there is something fundamentally wrong in that.

    That being said..would you agree that no one needs to own a bushmaster..? These things should not even be on the market.

     



    Not saying we shouldn't do anything. Just saying not to have unrealistic expectations about it.

     

    Sure, no one needs a bushmaster. But that's far from the only gun that has ever been used in mass shootings. Everyone is freaked out and concentrates on getting rid of guns like the bushmaster. Hell, 9mm handguns have been used to kill a hell of a lot more civilians than bushmaster's ever have. So why, if deaths are the main reason, are we in such a tizzy over bushmaster type guns and not 9mm handguns??? I find this confusing. Non-assault weapons have been used in about 75% of mass shootings....yet all people seem to be concerned about is assault weapons. Why is that? How about the fact that the most deaths (33) from a mass shooting (V Tech) happened with a 9mm and .22 handguns. 

     




    So..( and pardon my ignorance in terms of guns)...are you saying that a 9mm handgun could do the same kind of damage..in other words..gun down and kill 26 people in a matter of minutes?

    I think getting rid of guns like the Bushmaster is a start. I also think that more comprehensive background checks would make a difference. I don't like to place blame on a victim..but the reality is this: Mrs. Lanza..knowing her son had mental issues..should either not have had those guns in the home..or should have had them locked up more securely. One of my issues with the NRA is that they don't even support education on safety anymore.

    I don't think that either of the above are intrusive or burdensome...especially in an age where we are fingerprinting teachers and running FBI background checks on them as a condition of employment.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    Harry Reid is NOT going to let any gun bans through the senate. He may allow debate on a ban of high capacity 10 round magazines.

    Not likely to pass the dem controlled senate either though.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    You mean like how difficult it is to get illegal drugs??

    Yeah I suppose there are lots of illegal gun manufacturing factories around here....  

    And of course, it's as easy to ship massive heavy crates full of guns as it is to have people swallow condoms of heroin and bring it in without detection... 

    In other words: God-awful analogy.




    Guns can be shipped in crates pretty easily my friend!!

    Its a big world and about a 5% of containers are actually searched!

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Guns can be shipped in crates pretty easily my friend!! Its a big world and about a 5% of containers are actually searched!

    Oh, the rank defeatism.

    Why aren't you advocating for a repeal of all laws and closure of all prisons? Clearly they aren't stopping criminals from committing crimes.



    lol, I know the truth and facts really hurt the lame blame game but, keep trying the weak will follow your lead.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share