He is a truly awful man — with that I agree with you. But I'd much rather you kept him!Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Printable View
He is a truly awful man — with that I agree with you. But I'd much rather you kept him!Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
I think you find that most law abiding, responsible gun owners have little objection to regulations and registration, which is one of the reasons I am not a member of the NRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Strip the heinous nature of the mass shootings out of the equation and take a hard look at the reality of the majority of murders involving firearms in this country, I think you will find the majority are drug related, gang related, and unfortunately, highly race related. Gun buy-back programs, restrictions on "assault" weapons and further tightening already strict gun regulations will not get guns out of the hands of these types of criminals. People always have the ability to turn a fire arm in to any law enforcement agency at any time if they don't want to have firearms in their homes. You don't think those buy backs have been financially motivated? Hold an open weapons turn in program and see what we get.
Our courts need to lock criminals that use firearms up, put them to work and keep them there or give the m the option of taking the cowards way out. I live in one of the tightest gun control states in the US and you know what? We have one of the highest murder rates in the country involving firearms. Criminals literally laugh at being arrested around here. Project Exile has been a joke and the so called war on drugs has been comical. You want to eliminate murder on the streets of Baltimore and most US cities, eliminate heroin and crack cocaine.
I know all about BOA and Citi. I worked for both and got out of that business 20 years ago. Unfortunately, my wife is still in the industry biding her time. I think she has roughly 18 months.
I think they were simply looking for someone even more arrogant and rude than Simon Cowell when they hired him for America's got talent and we got stuck with him. He's here by choice unfortunately, but if it' really so bad and distasteful to him to live here, he's certainly free to leave. Thankfully my television tuner works just fine. If we could eliminate CNN AND FOX News in some sort of epic newsroom showdown, it would be a happy day for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I genuinely believe Piers Morgan to probably suffer from some sort of personality disorder, such does he come across.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Bite your tongue!!! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Why don't you like Soros/Bloomberg?
I agree with all that you've written there. But as for eliminating coke and heroin, there's too much money in it to ever think that it can or will be eliminated. Did you ever watch the amazingly great series The Wire? Most of my law enforcement pals have commented that that series was 100% dead on the mark. The (so called) War on Drugs has been nothing short of a joke and a dog & pony show put on for naive people.... kinda like thinking that banning AK's will lessen the murder rate one iota.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
The lyrics from the old 80's classic, Smuggler's Blues, say it all:
See it in the headlines,
You hear it ev'ry day.
They say they're gonna stop it,
But it doesn't go away.
They move it through Miami, sell it in L.A.,
They hide it up in Telluride,
I mean it's here to stay.
It's propping up the governments in Columbia and Peru,
You ask any D.E.A. man,
He'll say There's nothin' we can do,
From the office of the President,
Right down to me and you, me and you.
It's a losing proposition,
But one you can't refuse.
It's the politics of contraband,
It's the smuggler's blues.
That's ironic. I was working in banking in Maryland back then. It will be really funny if we eventually meet at a race and both of us say, at the same time, "Say, don't I know you from somewhere???" The money was great. But it's nice to wake up and be able to like/respect myself again... without the feeling that I need to take a shower to get "clean" when I get home from work - but the dirty feeling just wouldn't go away after awhile.Quote:
I know all about BOA and Citi. I worked for both and got out of that business 20 years ago. Unfortunately, my wife is still in the industry biding her time. I think she has roughly 18 months.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Based on their anti-gun views, it's kind of an inside joke among us gun nuts. Sort of like me saying to Daniel that he has a secret love for iMacs or someone saying to me that I have a life size poster of Tony George above my bed. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
We were screwed when the Entitlement class approached to being the majority voting group and thus now just vote for more stuff from the Government. Add in a few % with White, liberal guilt and voila.........Totally screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
The difference is that now the enemy is a significant portion of the US Population who are drinking the Kool-Aid forced fed them by the Media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I have already shown how the police are under no legal or moral obligation to protect the people and history is full of "Well intentioned" governments turning on its people and yet people still think that a unarmed populace is a good thing.
Sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Nope. I defend his right to say whatever he wants to say. Even if its is the vile, despicable, ignorant, crap that he likes to spew.
BTW I like the way he starts out saying he has shot everything from "Magnum 45 handguns"
Excuse me? First I don't believe that wussy has ever fired a gun without crying like the little Brit Girlie man but there is NO SUCH THING AS A "MAGNUM 45"
So his opinion is based on either ignorance or a lie. Something that all arguments for the destruction of basic human rights are usually based on.
Yeah, I watched the Wire. Easiest show ever to write. All they had to do was read the Baltimore Sun and watch the police reports every morning. I agree, it's 100% accurate, and unfortunately, I think parts of Baltimore may actually be worse than portrayed back then. Heroin has single handedly ruined many parts of what was a fine city. I recommend anyone that wonders why some of us are adamant about gun ownership spend a few hours and watch the Wire series. fortunately, I only work in the city and live 40 miles outside of the city, but it's effects are felt even at home. At least they keep the harbor and tourist areas safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I rather like the proposals in the The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute Bill 2012. I note that it doesn't make mention of provisions relating to semi-automatic or automatic weapons. I'm wondering if this should be included...
When I register a motor car in NSW, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and Engine number are recorded. I'm wondering if this database which you propose should include standardised serial numbers (which the manufacturers would agree to) and if parts don't match up, it should raise flags in the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
All guns are already serialized and possession of a non numbered firearm is a federal offense under the federal gun control act of 1968. It is also a state offense in all states as far as I know. In my state all new handguns must also be accompanied by a test fired round from the manufacturer, even though many experts question the practical usefulness of this method of ballistic matching. You do not want to be cought in possession of a gun with a removed serial number. Fully automatic weapons and most so called and identified assault weapons are already highly restricted in most states and under the federal government. This includes handguns. Most transfers or sales of these restricted weapons legally have to go through an FFL or a local police department. I guarantee, despite provisions that records of firearms sales are not supposed to be retained by the state or federal government after completion of a transfer, the ATF and Maryland State police know exactly how many restricted weapons should be in my posession from my transactions and background checks. Actual registration of ALL firearms has been highly controversial with the staunchest pro gun advocates, primarily as an infringement of a constitutional right to privacy. Maryland tried it... it was scrapped as cumbersome to administer and ineffective, and IIRC even the state police were against it. Maryland also attempted to force serialization of all ammunition which would have also essentially outlawed home reloading which drew an even larger outcry. That effort was stillborn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
It is quite a misnomer that anyone in this country can just walk into a store like a Walmart and walk out with a firearm without questionin most areas. Even an unregulated firearm like a shotgun requires a BACKGROUND check and a registration of the sale.
In the The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
What do you mean by firearms?
What weapons are you, Mr. Jag_Warrior, civilian, allowed to purchase legally? And as many as you wish?
Despite Gun Control, Dutch Shooting Rampages Becoming Common
WTF is going on in Europe?
Would the deaths of two people even make any news at all in the United States? Of course the people of the Netherlands would be outraged, there are different norms in that country.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
What is your point here exactly?
oh, that despite total bans on automatic weapons, a shooting occurred.... and yes, the shooting of anyone does make the news here in the US. Nationally, maybe not, but then we are comparing a country of 16m people with the US. We have cities larger than the entire country and with that, proportionately larger problems. As do most shootings in the US, this shooting clearly involved criminals and illegal firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
'The enemy'? Honestly, get real. You genuinely equate those with a different view to yours on gun control with the Japanese in 1941?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I don't believe he's ever fired a wide range of guns either. Mind you, I don't believe that you brought that gun to Europe illegally, so you are as bad as each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I'm confused here. In one post you are critical of how people 'drink the Kool-Aid force-fed them by the media'; then in another you uncritically wheel out an article from the media in which the headline says that 'Dutch shooting rampages (are) becoming common', when said article offers no evidence of the sort. I would contend that shooting rampages are not becoming common in the Netherlands at all. You, Tony, are an ignoramus of the highest order when it comes to what's 'going on in Europe'. You have not the faintest idea. Your comments on any subject relating to matters from outside the USA's borders are always embarrassingly laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
The point is that Tony is, as ever, desperately keen to show us that he can key the phrase 'SPURIOUS EVIDENCE FROM CRAP MEDIA OUTLETS OF EUROPEAN VIOLENCE' into Google. It's not a bad skill, but it's no substitute for actual knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
That is obvious that the people of the Netherlands are victims of a repressive government and should be allowed to defend themselves as only a fool would think the police will.
Another victory for Gun Control
At least 9 people shot in early hours of new year - Chicago Sun-Times
While it's not exactly called the "Magnum 45", there are several firearms chambered for the .45 Win Mag cartridge. Two of the more popular models are the AMT Automag IV and the LAR Grizzly. And I *believe* there is a barrel for the Thompson Encore single shot pistol which is chambered for that round. I can personally attest to the effectiveness of that round in the AMT Automag, having used one to take down a wild boar with one shot at roughly 40 yards. Compared to the .44 magnum (in a revolver), I much prefer the .45 Win Mag (in a semi-auto). IMO, it's a sweet and ideal round. The recoil is much less, the muzzle velocity is relatively high, it's more controllable and the knock-down is just as good +/- as the "Dirty Harry" caliber. It (the AMT and I suspect the LAR too) is a big heavy beast of a weapon though.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I haven't read or heard Morgan's comments on this (or most any) issue - have no idea what he's on about. But yeah, there is a "Magnum 45"/.45 magnum.
Yes, we do have an entitlement class (of sorts) and we also have a very similar class which is delusional in its belief that the overly generous benefits extended to the ultra wealthy also benefit them - all while they feed from the same trough as the people who they look down upon. While they themselves are collecting SSI, disability, food stamps, Section 8 housing, discounted school lunches, etc., they (somehow) don't see themselves as takers... yet they most certainly are (more so than the "blue states", the "red states" tend to get more from the Federal pot than they put into the Federal pot... that's simply a fact - that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion). IMO, there are too many extremists and ideologues on both sides. But right now, sadly, the far right seems to have fairly well taken control of what once was a fairly rational, sensible party, that could intelligently present alternate views, and made it a sad joke... by spouting all manner of baseless propaganda, foolishness and ignorance at every turn. Social conservatives and extremists posing as fiscal conservatives... and most of them couldn't pass a basic Econ 101 course taught at a community college. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Here is an example of the political hypocrisy which I am speaking about. I find it extremely amusing to observe people who are, in fact, that which they claim to abhor. And yes, I am aware of the source of this video. But I am also well aware that the portrayal is not entirely inaccurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y54rcz_L5Q4
But as this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and I have no intention of being pulled off topic, I won't address this again.
By "firearms" I mean those weapons covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. In short, basically any modern weapon, produced after 1898(?), which fires a rimfire or centerfire cartridge which is still in production.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
It varies from state to state. The way our laws work, a state law (most any state law) may be more restrictive, but not less restrictive, than the corresponding Federal law. So while a civilian may be allowed to purchase a semi-auto .50 cal Barrett in my state (because Federal law allows it and our state law does not prohibit it), I don't believe it is legal for purchase in California and several other states. And while I'm not arguing for the practicality of this particular firearm, as far as I know, it has never been used in the commission of any crime in the United States. It's not exactly small or concealable. Even someone my size would have trouble lugging that beast around to do any dirt with it.Quote:
What weapons are you, Mr. Jag_Warrior, civilian, allowed to purchase legally? And as many as you wish?
As for types of weapons which are (Federally) available, most any weapon which falls within the above statutes is available for civilians to purchase, unless their state prohibits it. It is legally possible (Federally) for civilians to purchase certain select fire and fully automatic weapons here - it's just not very easy (or cost effective). But only certain ones produced before 1986 are legal. And to make the purchase, it can occur only after submitting oneself to a very thorough FBI background check, being willing and able to pay a Title II fee to the ATF and realizing that your name will be on a hot list with any and all local and state police agencies. This is probably why there have been no murders with legally owned civilian full or select fire weapons in several decades. The last one that I'm aware of was by a rogue FBI agent who murdered his prostitute girlfriend/mistress. I'm not actually certain of the last instance of a (actual) civilian using a legally owned full/select fire weapon to commit a crime. I just don't know. But apparently it's extremely rare. But now, there are quite a few illegally owned full auto and select fire weapons though. Typically they are smuggled into the U.S. by the Russian/Israeli mob, Mexican cartels and Chinese smugglers. And they are mostly in the hands of organized crime and street gangs. The money for and from these transactions has flowed through some/most of the biggest money center banks, like Bank of America, Well Fargo and HSBC.
You do know that "the media" isn't one single entity but is composed of hundreds if not thousands of publications, TV and radio networks, and increasingly bloggers and Tweeters, yes? Once you start making out that there's some mass conspiracy at work you really do lose the tiny shard of remaining credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
And would your propose that these stay as is? I notice that the term "assault weapon" has too many deviations and loop holes (definitions)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
How would you categorize what you Jag_Warrior, civilian :) is allowed to carry or keep safe at your home?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Yeah, sure. Victims of a repressive government, that's one of the funniest things I have ever read about my country. (That's a Dutch flag next to my name, in case you didn't know)
Under my reforms, it would be (actually is even now) illegal for a person with a confirmed mental disability or who has been convicted of certain crimes to even possess a single round of ammunition. One .22 caliber bullet in your pocket and you go away for a minimum of 10 years and a max of 20 years. But unlike now, under my reforms, it won't matter if you're a cute little blue-eyed blonde, who never missed church, whether or not you were high or drunk when you committed the crime that brought you a violent felony conviction, or even if your dear old daddy is the governor of the state - you are going to prison under the Jag_Warrior Reforms. For once, justice will be blind... though rather cold - but I believe this would be effective. Anyway, that being the case, it goes without saying that these people could not possess semi or fully automatic weapons either, so I didn't see the need to pull them out for separate penalties. But I'm perfectly fine with adding even more time to a sentence if a criminal is found to be in possession of a Title II weapon of any type. Apparently they had a (non-functional) rocket launcher turned in on that L.A. gun buyback program the other day. Now that's pretty interesting. I bet they didn't buy that thing at a gun show or at Walmart, huh? :D It didn't work, but still, that should tell people that we've got some things floating around on our streets that indicate the source for these weapons is a key issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Nigel has already provided a very good explanation of how the system is set up now. Though I could now be convinced that the system should be enhanced (to provide for longer term traceability), possessing any firearm without serial numbers is a quick ticket to jail right now... in any state - it's a Federal law.Quote:
When I register a motor car in NSW, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and Engine number are recorded. I'm wondering if this database which you propose should include standardised serial numbers (which the manufacturers would agree to) and if parts don't match up, it should raise flags in the system.
Hey, I know that we're not capable of solving this (or any) problem on a message board, but is anyone else also getting the feeling that once we took some of the emotion and propaganda out of it, and started discussing facts and data, we've been able to talk with each other and not just at each other? And to the members who don't live in the U.S. (and maybe to some of those who do), as we discuss, ask and learn more about the (actual) existing gun laws in the U.S., I believe that the discussion will get even better and more constructive. It's not about bending anyone's opinion or making them change their position. But at least we'd all be speaking based on data and facts and not just emotion. Cool?
I would strongly suggest the term be eliminated from the vernacular altogether... It is misleading, inaccurate and selectively used by those with a particular agenda when convenient. In general those that advocate the outright ban of civilian posession of all firearms. The assault weapons ban of 1994 did one thing... it created an industry by clearly defining what it could not be while totally missing the opportunity to actually define the characteristics of the targeted types of weapons it was supposedly intended to restrict. I've yet to see one report of a civilian killed by a bayonet attack or a flash supressor, and I have no idea how a collapsible stock vs a fixed stock changes the equation other than possibly making them more concealable. Banning so called machine pistols was about a close as they actually got.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Why is there ANY confusion over what is termed a firearm? Firearms are guns, plain and simple. "Arms" as protected by the Second are NOT restricted to FIREarms. Knives, spears, swords, stunguns, are all protected, however there are indeed restrictions on all of these at the state level as well. You want restrictions, regulations, prohibitions, that is up to teh state as Jag_Warrior pointed out.
ENFORCE the LAWS we already have.
I doubt he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by EightGear
Bonkers. Only word for it. What I find most disturbing is that you seem to have no qualms about coming across the way you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I have no issue with state laws being more prohibitive, if that's what citizens of those states choose to do, as long as they do not violate Constitutionally protected rights (whether they be gun rights, voting rights, religious rights or citizenship rights).Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
The term "assault weapon" has become rather meaningless in modern usage (kinda like "socialism" ;) ), as its misuse takes it away from the actual, original meaning, derived from the German word, "sturmgewehr", meaning storm/assault rifle. By definition, a (true) assault weapon is one which has the ability to be fired on full automatic or select fire modes. Such weapons, while available in a very limited way, are largely unseen by most Americans. The AK-47 variants and AR-15's, that people associate with the term "assault weapons", are actually just semi-automatic weapons which fire cartridges of medium to low caliber and which have only medium power. Do they look mean and scary? They sure do. But are legally possessed versions of any of these weapons used in any statistically significant number of gun crimes in the U.S.? No. But they do look mean and scary. But in fact, a Remington 750 "hunting rifle" in .30-06 caliber is MUCH more powerful and deadly than any AK or AR. The AK only has about the same punch as a .30-30 rifle produced over 100 years ago.
If I was studying water safety and attacks by sea life, I would mostly focus on sea creatures which posed the greatest statistical threat to swimmers. But I ask, which is the more scary creature, a Great White shark or a jellyfish? The shark, right? I mean, just like an AK or AR, those are some scary looking beasts! :eek: And just like an AK or AR, they most certainly can kill you. But from what I've read, jellyfish attacks kill 30 times more people per year than all shark attacks combined... so you can imagine what sort of small (statistical) threat Great Whites pose. Same with these so called "assault weapons" (depending on what one wants to misname or call an assault weapon). From the last data that I saw, these weapons account for far less than 1% of firearms related murders.
So that's why I've made no specific mention of that weapons class or what law abiding citizens can or cannot have. While possibly worthy of discussion, it doesn't appear to be a topic which would accomplish the primary goal here. But if you don't agree, I'd be happy to address the topic and look at whatever data that you come across. Everything is open for discussion, right? The smuggling of illegal full autos (did you click my links?) and the possession of any weapon by convicted criminals and the mentally disabled have received most of my attention, because (statistically) that's where the problem seems to lie. I'm not allowing a violent criminal to legally possess even a .22 caliber short cartridge in his pocket, much less an AK or AR rifle. Gotta get the most bang for the buck, right? So I'm trying to address the root cause and primary contributors, not so much the things that just frighten people because of their cosmetic appearance.
Oh! BTW, to make room for all of these smugglers, money launderers in fancy suits, repeat violent offenders, gangsters, et al, that I'd see rounded up and locked away for very long periods of time, I'm going to be releasing many/most of the potheads and petty criminals that are clogging up the judicial and prison systems right now. If they're truly a problem, we'll need to deal with them in ways other than just locking weed smokers up with murderers, rapists and child molesters. The ridiculous War on Drugs, that we've had for the past 40 odd years, comes to an end, certainly as it's been "fought" so far! And there would need to be (severe) reforms within various law enforcement agencies as well.
I couldn't agree more. Governments seem increasingly keen on fighting wars which are blatantly unwinnable (cf. Afghanistan). There is no practical sense in which the 'war on drugs' can meaningfully be won, and it amazes me that politicians — and others — of successive generations have sought to perpetuate the fallacy that it can, while simultaneously wasting the police's time. I'm not convinced that the prison space they currently occupy need automatically be filled up with other sorts of criminal, as I take the view that the prison population, certainly in the UK, is already too large as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I very, very much appreciate your approach to this topic. You raise some very interesting points, and I agree with many of them. Certainly, they are a welcome antidote to the inarticulate nonsense being spouted from some other quarters, representative of the worst of right-wing American worldviews. However, I do feel you're still neglecting, somewhat, one important element — the underlying culture. More specifically, I'm referring the way in which the gun has become some sort of default option for the sort of attacks that always provoke the discussion we're having. Do you feel your ideas for reform would do anything towards tackling this? My worry, from reading elements of this thread, is the way in which the gun has in the US become 'normalised'; the way people refer to guns in the same vein as they would a badly-driven car, to cite one example. To me, at least, it's completely alien. This must have an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Well, we could quit threatening to take something away from folks and simply enforce the tight regualtions as suggested by Jag. Prohibition is the worst form of control IMHO. Then we could challenge the media and the entertainment industry to cease teh sensationalization of violence as they are all too apt to do currently. Real or percieved, if you are constantly bombarded with violence, it eventually is accepted as real.
I do find it strange that you and others, presumably, don't apply this to everything. After all, I assume you consider prohibition the best form of control in relation to certain things, don't you? Otherwise you would oppose the very concept of laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Again, I say that I completely disagree with you about this in the context of gun crime. I deplore sensationalised depictions and the glamourisation of violence, simply because I find them vulgar, but I don't think they are central to addressing this topic. Nor, more importantly, am I in favour of undue media censorship. I would sooner place further restrictions on firearm ownership on the grounds that I consider this far more inherently troublesome and dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
No, I do not believe absolute prohibition is necessary or appropriate in every aspect of society. Prohibition of marijuana use or posesession has been one of the biggest jokes of the last hundred years in this country. Alcohol phohibition was an absolute catastrophy. Actually, I do resent the constant over legislation of our country. The very concept of personal responsibility is absent from our society. Just passs another law... I never said censorship of the entertainemnt, but ok- self censorship. Self monitoring. Just because you CAN does not mean you should. The entertainment industry, in this country especially, has zero conscience. They need to get one. instead, we'll have a movie about it within a year. We will have to agree to disagree on the influence it has on MY society. So called action movies, television, music, ESPECIALLY the vast majority of rap music, GAMING, the way our news outlets report on violence. Sure, we've always had cowboy movies, war movies, etc, but the extreme level of violence we are constantly bombarded with in this country absolutely has an effect on people.
With respect, though, that wasn't quite what you said previously, was it? The quote to which I referred was 'Prohibition is the worst form of control', which I took to mean that you are always opposed to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
On this, I very much agree with you. But I'd place the prohibition of violent movies and video games in the same category. Some might argue, with a degree of justification, that alcohol prohibition would be of more practical effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Again (and somewhat in contradiction with what some think of me), I agree with you, but I do feel there are limits. To me, firearms — instruments designed to kill — simply cross the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Another thing on which we're in agreement. However, events of the recent past have proved to me that simple responsibility simply does not exist in large sections of the media. How, then, to change this?Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Well, I haven't gone to a movie theatre to see or rented a violent movie in close to ten years. I do admit my kid has several video games others have bought him, however I also know my son and daughter and I teach them morality and responsibility. It has to start somewhere, but simply banning and confiscating weapons will NOT have the desired effect. That I am confident of.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Several of us have come up with realistic suggestions for reducing gun related crime and deaths in the US. There are already many laws on the books that are ineffective mostly because they are not enforced. Yet you keep coming back with wanting more restrictions on ownership. We put practical, realistic ideas out there. Where are yours? Be specific now, we were.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell