Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, you are propossing that only someone who can afford a clearance should be allowed to be able to protect themselves with a firearm..... The ACLU will have a field day with this one..
So, you are propossing that only someone who can afford a clearance should be allowed to be able to protect themselves with a firearm..... The ACLU will have a field day with this one..
the ACLU would tell you that they dont defend the 2nd Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speleothem
How restrictive of a law would have
prevented this teacher from buying
the guns her son used?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I don't think many of our progs know about that part of the story. They have been too busy working for gun control, whatever that turns out to be.
But why in the world did the mother own 3 firearms including a semi-automatic assault rifle? Why was that even necessary? especially since she lived in a safe upper-middle-class area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speleothem
How restrictive of a law would have
prevented this teacher from buying
the guns her son used?
But why in the world did the mother own 3 firearms including a semi-automatic assault rifle? Why was that even necessary? especially since she lived in a safe upper-middle-class area.
i own over 100 civilian "assault rifles" in my home. i own them because i can, and it is my right to do so.
This could make sense in some form. Others nations like Switzerland and Israel are closer to this path, and they sure don't have the kinds of things we see here on a weekly basis.
how about a security clearance to vote, attend political rallies, or make a speech?
that would get rid of 50-60% of all democrat voters.
How about being able to pass a TS/SCI-level background investigation to hold public office? That would eliminate more than 50% of the Senate, nearly as much in the House, and there'd be a "Vacancy" sign at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
But why in the world did the mother own 3 firearms including a semi-automatic assault rifle? Why was that even necessary? especially since she lived in a safe upper-middle-class area.
Because it's legal to do so. Are you advocating that people who can afford to do so, or who live in "good" areas not be allowed to protect themselves? I live in a "good" neighborhood and someone tried to break into my home last week. I was prepared and waiting with a loaded semi (with 17 rounds) while the police were on their way.
Also, do you believe that lower-incomer or "non-safe" areas be flooded with weapons? Guess what? They already are and most are in the hands of the criminals agaist whom we are trying to protect ourselves.
A sensible program could be crafted that allowed cleared individuals to trade freely in firearms while the uncleared would have a lengthy waiting period and be subject to a background check during each purchase.
Of course some kind of background check should be a requirement. Full blown background investigation, don't know..Problem is, we never even have this discussion because gunnuts start their now traditional irrational roll out of pools, knives, spoons, bubble gum etc being more dangerous than guns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
