A terrorist or a felon will get the gun no matter what. A intrusive government is never the answer. As a person who works in small business that is a lie. My company has openly stated that dropping our healthcare and them paying the fine is on the table. As well as furloughs to get people under the required hours.
That's like saying some people drive without licenses. So there shouldn't be licenses. In any event the point is not so much whether people "pay attention" as whether there are any restrictions on their ability to get weapons.
By the logic of that, why don't we just invite al Qaeda members over here, and give them guns when they get here? You can take up a collection to fund the project. Effective and protective government often is the best available answer, btw. The alternative is called anarchy.
An no law is going to hamper the ability of a terrorist or other criminal to obtain a bushmaster. They'll likely go for a better gun anyway.
I suggest you contribute to Shade Tree's Terrorist Arming Fund. What nonsense there is nothing to be done. You guys believe in anarchy.
You live in Nashville so you may not have heard about the 6 year old in the town I went to high school in (Toms River, NJ) that was killed by a 4 year old who was somehow able to drag his dad's loaded .22 out the house and shoot the kid in the head. Rumor has it the 4 year olds dad is an officer to boot. Sadly stupidity and gun ownership seem to be pretty high and sadly no laws will ever prevent that.
You can bet your ass if those who were buying and reselling guns to criminals were criminally and civilly liable for the actions of those purchases the availability of guns to criminals would drop substantially.
Not to mention it would be nice to get to a world where the only people killed by guns were killed by diehard criminals, terrorists and the authorities trying to prevent the first two. The elephant in the room in the whole gun control/second amendment rights argument is that most people killed by guns are killed accidentally, in arguments that boil over and by a person not normally seen as a criminal, and by their own hand. Guns are a disease of the population that kill a large number of people every year before criminal intent ever enters into the picture.
Absolutely. The politicians keep going back to Newton what about the 3000 plus who have died at the hands of guns since? It's outright carnage on a daily basis. Serial number and a ballistic fingerprint on every sold gun along with liability for the gun.
Won't get any argument from me... Stupid people will exist no matter what laws are on the book but punishing the stupid for their irresponsible actions might deter stupid people from doing irresponsible things.
I don't believe in anarchy, I believe in freedom and the constitution. I believe in self reliance and personal responsibility. I reject the idea that the many are responsible for the wrong doing of the few. If you can come up with a reasonable idea that will stop nut jobs from committing evil acts, I'm all ears. History shows you won't be able to though. Gun control certainly hasn't been effective. Terrorists don't give a fuck about filing for a background check.
Most people that are killed by guns are killed by gang bangers in inner cities and they don't register guns or fill out paperwork for background checks. You are wrong.
i have to say i am super happy there is at least one other guy on the board who doesnt believe in complete control by the govt for the good of the people.... im actually a bit surprised that so many of you guys are so adamant about this topic. i dont own a gun, simply because i dont want to be responsible for what i may do with it. i think i do a pretty good job making decisions on what i can and cant handle. i would be in support of a bigger penalty for your gun ending up in the wrong hands... see we can compromise!
Our super tight border control obviously prevents any guns from entering the country through Mexico. Gangs don't purchase guns from Mexico either, that would be illegal.
We need to enforce extensive background checks for anyone purchasing heroin. Effective and protective government is the best available answer.
So I have the right to personal nuclear weapons right? Or a tank. Or a drone. Or a fighter jet. If you don't agree, then you are in favor of at least SOME limits on bearing arms. Where do you draw the line? And what qualifies you (or anyone other than a majority of citizens through the legislative process) to draw it? Gun control is an essential function of government. Public safety is job number one, and regulating weaponry is a big part of that. I'm not saying ban all guns, but there clearly needs to be limits. Why do the gun nuts always want to forget the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment?
I'm just curious why a potential employer has the right to run a background check on me and can disqualified for employment based on what shows up on that background check yet can walk into a gun show with that very same background check and buy something can cause mass destruction to innocent people.
