Quote:
Originally Posted by nate2512
This is a huge win, with common law, the liberals are going to have a tough road to hoe as the NRA now has a lot of steam.
Leave it to everyone on the board to spin this into a we shouldn't look at this too broadly. I did, in fact, read everything in the entirety, but one phrase highlights everything "the right of an individual owning a gun shall not be infringed upon"
Why should those of us using our guns lawfully and upright citizens be punished for the crimes of the ignorant.
I mean, even if they did ban guns, only the citizens who already abide by the law are going to follow that, so what do they expect to gain out of a gun ban? I mean, there would be more looting as criminals would know that people aren't going to be armed, and they will illegally smuggle weapons and such into the country much like cocaine or other illegal substances. I've yet to find compelling evidence that shows gun bans would do anything for our country with the exceptions of robbing s law-abiding citizens of our weekend hobbies.
|
Nate;
You may wish to compare gun violent and gun related deaths between the USA and the rest of the modern world/G-8.
Nate, BTB, I was taught my gun safety and shooting skills by a former US Army Major in a NRA class.
I was a member of the NRA and I know its' history. Today it has strayed a long way from its founding.
I have no problems with guns per se. It is with people who own and operate them.
There should be a reason to have one. Owner should know all about it, how to operate it safely, how to
use it safely, and how to keep it safe. However, I do not see any kind of reason for any civilian to own or have in
their possession any kind of "military" weapon. One does not hunt with a fully auto, 30 mag, AK-47.
Nor does one need a .50 cal snipers rifle.
Yet, the NRA says one does. One of the reasons I am no longer a member. And I support gun regulations.
It is, after all, very much like risk management. "Crimes of the ignorant" can cover many sins.
Threaded Mode
