Long-time conservative Republican gun owner and NRA member, Joe Scarborough, has changed his mind... and so can you (Congress, regular)
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.
Astonishing change of events! He had the NRA's highest ratings for all 4 of his terms in congress and now is rallying AGAINST the NRA in search for gun reform. You have to watch the whole thing.
"Nothing can ever be the same again."
It's time for some common sense reform. No one is going to take away your handgun... we just need some reasonable compromise to make sure the senseless killing stops. How could ANYONE be against that?
OP, Thanks you very much for posting this. I watched some of the show, but had to leave too early to catch this.
I wish we had tons of Scarboroughs in DC. It is little wonder this gentleman served 8 years during the peak period for his party. Unlike this wing nut era, it was a time when bi-partisan accomplishments occured regularly, as intellect was valued.
I would actually propose allowing people to keep assault weapons - just change the conditions upon which they can be owned. And with that, change the conditions upon which all guns can be owned. That's the key here. Just banning a weapon isn't going to do squat. That's nothing but symbolism.
Create classes of firearms, according to those which are capable of inflicting most casualties. Even if the weapons are considered especially dangerous, people should still be allowed to own them if they so desire; they just need to be prepared to pay for them, and they need to be prepared to account for them, and to produce their guns upon inspection of an ATF agent for monitoring, etc. They should be licensed, and their guns should be GPS tracked. The thing is, see, these impositions alone will reduce the number of weapons that they own. If they mess up, they turn over their license, and they turn over their weapons. That simple. And if they fail to do so, then they're guilty of weapons violations and they get fined and threatened with home repossession until they comply. But if someone's responsible enough, yes, let that person keep their assault rifles. We'll know who has them, how many they have, and we'll know they're in responsible hands.
A ban just for the sake of having some senator claim credit for authoring a law that can be named after him or her? Heck, I never thought I'd be in agreement with the gun lobby, but I'm inclined to side with them on this...just for completely different reasons.
I would actually propose allowing people to keep assault weapons - just change the conditions upon which they can be owned. And with that, change the conditions upon which all guns can be owned. That's the key here. Just banning a weapon isn't going to do squat. That's nothing but symbolism.
Create classes of firearms, according to those which are capable of inflicting most casualties. Even if the weapons are considered especially dangerous, people should still be allowed to own them if they so desire; they just need to be prepared to pay for them, and they need to be prepared to account for them, and to produce their guns upon inspection of an ATF agent for monitoring, etc. They should be licensed, and their guns should be GPS tracked. The thing is, see, these impositions alone will reduce the number of weapons that they own. If they mess up, they turn over their license, and they turn over their weapons. That simple. And if they fail to do so, then they're guilty of weapons violations and they get fined and threatened with home repossession until they comply. But if someone's responsible enough, yes, let that person keep their assault rifles. We'll know who has them, how many they have, and we'll know they're in responsible hands.
A ban just for the sake of having some senator claim credit for authoring a law that can be named after him or her? Heck, I never thought I'd be in agreement with the gun lobby, but I'm inclined to side with them on this...just for completely different reasons.
Taxation would work wonders. Own a grandfathered gun? Well here is your property tax bill...
Joe "jumped the fence" to the Liberal side years ago. He knows who signs his paycheck and is quick to make some hay out of this situation. Did he call for a ban on violent movies too? Not likely...
The wing nuts won't like this; they never like it when someone speaks sense to them but that shouldn't stop us from doing what we know to be right. We need more gun control and at least the military style weapons need to be off the streets. We need to close the gun show loophole which allows 40% of gun sales to go through without any background checks at all. Buyers need to complete REAL safety classes BEFORE they get their guns and REAL psych tests must be conducted before we hand weapons to potential mass murderers. No more buying ammo over the internet and from now on magazines need to be limited in capacity. This is only common sense.
Create classes of firearms, according to those which are capable of inflicting most casualties. Even if the weapons are considered especially dangerous, people should still be allowed to own them if they so desire; they just need to be prepared to pay for them, and they need to be prepared to account for them, and to produce their guns upon inspection of an ATF agent for monitoring, etc. They should be licensed, and their guns should be GPS tracked. The thing is, see, these impositions alone will reduce the number of weapons that they own. If they mess up, they turn over their license, and they turn over their weapons. That simple. And if they fail to do so, then they're guilty of weapons violations and they get fined and threatened with home repossession until they comply. But if someone's responsible enough, yes, let that person keep their assault rifles. We'll know who has them, how many they have, and we'll know they're in responsible hands.
You're not proposing to allow people to keep anything, you're proposing regulation that would make it impossibly expensive to own them. This proposals are skirting the second amendment, If you want to address this issue in this manner contact your Congressman and demand a they back repeal or clarification of the second amendment. Have them stand up and be counted as anti gun...
As I've said in previous posts it will never happen so why do it through back door legislation?
I would actually propose allowing people to keep assault weapons - just change the conditions upon which they can be owned. And with that, change the conditions upon which all guns can be owned. That's the key here. Just banning a weapon isn't going to do squat. That's nothing but symbolism.
Create classes of firearms, according to those which are capable of inflicting most casualties. Even if the weapons are considered especially dangerous, people should still be allowed to own them if they so desire; they just need to be prepared to pay for them, and they need to be prepared to account for them, and to produce their guns upon inspection of an ATF agent for monitoring, etc. They should be licensed, and their guns should be GPS tracked. The thing is, see, these impositions alone will reduce the number of weapons that they own. If they mess up, they turn over their license, and they turn over their weapons. That simple. And if they fail to do so, then they're guilty of weapons violations and they get fined and threatened with home repossession until they comply. But if someone's responsible enough, yes, let that person keep their assault rifles. We'll know who has them, how many they have, and we'll know they're in responsible hands.
A ban just for the sake of having some senator claim credit for authoring a law that can be named after him or her? Heck, I never thought I'd be in agreement with the gun lobby, but I'm inclined to side with them on this...just for completely different reasons.
Shall we also tax religion, free speech and assembly?
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.
