i wasn't actually talking about a solution, just the contributing factors...which all stall solutions.
no...his fat foul ass is still broadcasting...
Did'nt I already tell you guys that I was calling sandy hook a complete hoax before AJ even aired anything about it. Didn't I tell you its BS that I'm not the one being sued instead of him?
Yeah, but nobody takes you seriously. No harm, no foul. Keep it stupid and you'll be fine.
umm, I disrespecfully say you did not look at all the images and footage. That bs poster you put up is fake.
Hey Fogdog,I think it all is a combo of the Wlid West mentality and a deep seated distrust of Govt. and "being ready" for govt.repression of freedom,that's my take and I'm certainly not a social/historical guru by any means.Banning AR-15's and the like for civilian use would not stop mass shootings and even if it were done the existing #'s of these guns is off the charts,but it'd be a start,and from there generous buybacks could get more off the street. The tumbling and fragmentation of the bullet is atrocious for surgeons compared to wounds from a bullet that exits straight thru the body.They are simply sinister in the damage they do and are strictly made for war to cause horrific wounds and turn a 3hr.surgery into a 15hr. surgery plus all the infection potential trying to remove shards of the fragged bullet.A shot gun is better suited for hitting a home intruder,a rifle is better for hunting and a pistol for carry and personal protection,assault rifles on the other hand are simply unnecessary and if their "fun" to fire at the range too bad,that argument doesn't fly.
that's too bad, person to person sales are just a fucking slap in the face to any kind of permitting or record keeping efforts.I like to think that things like this are going to figuratively backfire. This might actually fuel the national discussion on gun law.
More than pistol permits: Everything that's in North Carolina's new gun law
You no longer need to get a permit from the sheriff to buy a handgun. North Carolina's law also changes where you can take those guns and how you store them.www.wfmynews2.com
Those and gun shows seem like the obvious loopholes to close.
Federal gun control is the only way forward and the 2nd amendment is not an issue if the laws are properly written. The federal government has the exclusive right to regulate arms, it regulates calibers and automatic weapons, and the 2nd only mentions arms in a military context, not guns, and the feds regulate grenades, rockets, bombs and artillery, all arms in existence and used when the second was written. So, the federal government can ban semi-automatic pistols along with any semi-automatic long gun, if they can ban a machine gun. They can also increase the burden, expense and liability of owning a gun constitutionally. That is why gun nuts fear federal democratic political power like the Devil fears Holy water, they know the 2nd is about as substantial as a sheet of toilet paper, even with a conservative court.Looks like the far left in Oregon see the writing on the wall with Measure 114 and realize that it's likely not going to get past the courts. So now they're trying to do it through the State Legislature where it will likely pass and still end up stopped by the courts.
It also looks like they're trying to raise the fees as well so they can raise more money to waste on all of their failed programs that are nothing more than funneling money to the well connected. Grifters all of them.
"The bill would increase the fees to apply for a gun permit from a local police department or sheriff’s office from $65, as set out in Measure 114, to $150 and to $110 for a renewal permit."
Oregon’s stalled gun control Measure 114 gets new life as state bill
State Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Monday presided over hearings on a new bill that incorporates many of the gun control regulations voters approved under Measure 114, yet changes some of its provisions.www.oregonlive.com
.
You are correct. These state laws that they're trying to implement in Oregon are a waste of time. It has to be done at the federal level.
I have personally watched someone buy over 100 handguns, ar type rifles, and shotguns at one show, then load them into a van with New York plates on it...recently, not the first time I've seen similar transactions. I have all the weapons i need, i go to look at leatherwork and novelty stuff, but they're still doing a booming business, and not one background check. Dealers still have to fill them out, but private sellers do not, and they're the ones selling out.
Why would you want to limit gun ownership to those with the financial means to navigate the liability and cost of gun ownership in your scenario?
It does not matter, if the majority of the country wants it, the constitution provides the means for the government to do it and I just explained some of those means.
people seem to forget that it is an amendment that "guarantees" them the right to keep and bear arms.
My point is the feds can constitutionally and legally regulate guns out of existence if they wished and put in place increasing burdens, expense and liability for owning one. The second does not mention guns, it mentions military arms and those are regulated by the federal government, the first line in the 2nd explicitly stipulates it is for military purposes and sets the conditions for the rest. All you need is to elect a democratic government and you will soon find out.
It mentions “arms” which includes guns as well as swords etc. No mention of military.
Quote me the entire second, it was explicitly for communal defense purposes, as in militia, and that evolved into the national guard.
