Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why I'm for the Brady Bill
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.
This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.-Ronald Reagan
Why I'm for the Brady Bill
And the Brady Bill did nothing....more Americans own guns than ever before and our gun murder rate has been going down....
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
Please.....name one of the above actions that stopped one criminal or mass shooter from getting and using a gun.....
One second, let me comb through all arrests since the Brady Bill was passed.
Actually, you just love to ask that question and you know it's damn near impossible to answer that question due to a few decades, 10,000 of thousands municipalities and millions of police records.
As I have stated several times, my wife and I are avid hunters, so naturally we have a few guns.
I am not anti-gun, but I definitely think the amount of guns that are in America and the types of guns is simply insane. I belong to a couple of hunting groups and majority of us grown-ups agree that it's gotten out of hand.
I see folks like you as one of the problems. How many threads have you started on the subject? You are crazy to be this obsessed and I won't even tell you what my wife (a Psychologist) has to say about folks like yourself. When I say you're crazy, that isn't far off what evidence based studies have concluded. Definitely, insecure.
The point of posting the Ronald Reagan's opinion piece, it shows how far off the board gun mania has gotten. The hero of the conservative movement, isn't one of you because you and the rest of your paranoid gun nuts have gone too far by being motivated by fear and your gullible enough to believe all the fear mongering.
Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............LOLTime to turn the tables.................
The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............
So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?
It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.
You actually believe that................
No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.
I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.
The gun grabbers know they can't get rid of guns in one fell swoop. Each time there is a shooting incident, the feinsteins, schumers and clintons will be screaming for more gun laws until we'll be like france or england.
What's wrong with France or England? Have you ever been to either country?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government; it is not a right to carry any weapon so desired for any purpose so desired (see DC v. Heller).
The question, therefore, is not if government may regulate firearms, as in fact government may; rather, the question is what measures comport with the Second Amendment and what measures do not.
Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it is currently evolving, and will continue to evolve for decades to come.
Last, the notion that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ citizens to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ is baseless idiocy completely devoid of merit.
The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First, a minority of citizens cannot deny the majority their right to address government overreach through the political process or judicial process simply as a consequence of their wrongheaded, subjective beliefs.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government; it is not a right to carry any weapon so desired for any purpose so desired (see DC v. Heller).
The question, therefore, is not if government may regulate firearms, as in fact government may; rather, the question is what measures comport with the Second Amendment and what measures do not.
Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it is currently evolving, and will continue to evolve for decades to come.
Last, the notion that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ citizens to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ is baseless idiocy completely devoid of merit.
The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First, a minority of citizens cannot deny the majority their right to address government overreach through the political process or judicial process simply as a consequence of their wrongheaded, subjective beliefs.
The Founding Fathers disagree with you.....
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”-Benjamin Franklin
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778
“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776-George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
“(W)hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788-Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist
“We are told: ‘It is a universal truth, that he that would excite a rebellion, is at heart as great a tyrant as ever wielded the iron rod of oppression.’ Be it so. We are not exciting a rebellion. Opposition, nay, open, avowed resistance by arms, against usurpation and lawless violence, is not rebellion by the law of God or the land. Resistance to lawful authority makes rebellion. … Remember the frank Veteran acknowledges, that “the word rebel is a convertible term.” – Novanglus Essays, No. V, 1774 – 1775; The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, Volume 4; (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856), 10 volumes.
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” – A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Chapter Third: Marchamont Nedham, Errors of Government and Rules of Policy, 1787; The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) 10 volumes, Volume 6-John Adams
No advocate of a given firearm regulatory measure has presented that measure as a ‘panacea’ for all gun violence, gun crimes, and mass shootings.
That a mass shooting might occur in the context of current firearm regulatory policy does not mean that policy is ‘wrong’ or has ‘failed,’ or warrants its ‘repeal’
Laws authorizing background checks, for example, were never intended to ‘stop’ all gun crimes, as no one maintains that they do, and it’s a lie to ‘argue’ that because gun crimes continue to occur background checks have ‘failed,’ where nothing could be further from the truth.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government; it is not a right to carry any weapon so desired for any purpose so desired (see DC v. Heller).
The question, therefore, is not if government may regulate firearms, as in fact government may; rather, the question is what measures comport with the Second Amendment and what measures do not.
Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it is currently evolving, and will continue to evolve for decades to come.
Last, the notion that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ citizens to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ is baseless idiocy completely devoid of merit.
The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First, a minority of citizens cannot deny the majority their right to address government overreach through the political process or judicial process simply as a consequence of their wrongheaded, subjective beliefs.
The Founding Fathers disagree with you.....
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”-Benjamin Franklin
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778
“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776-George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
“(W)hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” – Federal Farmer, Anti-Federalist Letter, No.18, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788-Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist
“We are told: ‘It is a universal truth, that he that would excite a rebellion, is at heart as great a tyrant as ever wielded the iron rod of oppression.’ Be it so. We are not exciting a rebellion. Opposition, nay, open, avowed resistance by arms, against usurpation and lawless violence, is not rebellion by the law of God or the land. Resistance to lawful authority makes rebellion. … Remember the frank Veteran acknowledges, that “the word rebel is a convertible term.” – Novanglus Essays, No. V, 1774 – 1775; The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, Volume 4; (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856), 10 volumes.
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” – A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Chapter Third: Marchamont Nedham, Errors of Government and Rules of Policy, 1787; The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) 10 volumes, Volume 6-John Adams
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Absent a ruling where the Supreme Court overturned Heller, this is current Second Amendment jurisprudence, where the Second Amendment right is not absolute, and government is at liberty to regulate firearms pursuant to that jurisprudence.
Raise the age that young men can buy a gun to the age of 30.
Who does the most mass shootings?
Who acts as straw buyers for criminals?
Who has young children?
Who has to much testoserone for theirs and others own good?
Young men under 30.
They can shoot, hunt, what ever, they just wouldnt be able to purchase a weapon till they were 30.
Cops and soldiers excluded.
Does the 2nd guarantee you an AGE at which you can purchase guns? No, it doesnt.
The 2nd states quite clearly that the right to a gun shall not be infringed. This covers all Americans regardless of age.
One must conclude that your view of the 2nd allows a 12 year old, in tears because he got a bad grade, to buy a gun - no questions asked.
This is not a straw man, it's a fact based on your post.
If there are no restrictions, and that is what 'shall not be infringed' means to you, then it is a factual statement of what might occur. Other obvious scenarios can be proffered, with adults, drunk and sober, angry or resolved.
Does anything in your idea of gun control stop bad guys from getting guns?What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?
The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.
Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.
I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.
I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.
1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.
Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.
2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.
We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.
[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]
Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.
3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.
So, responsible people, any ideas?
We won't know until we make the effort.
A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.
Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?
Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.
It is the first step to banning them.............In order to collect the guns you need to know who owns them. It has happened in other countries like Canada.........They had nothing to fear.............the LEFT would NEVER EVER BAN GUNS................So they registered them..........Ban passed and so they knew who to take the guns from..................Time to turn the tables.................
The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............
So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?
It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.
Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]
That is your ULTIMATE GOAL.............stop dancing.
What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?
The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.
Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.
I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.
I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.
1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.
Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.
2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.
We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.
[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]
Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.
3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.
So, responsible people, any ideas?
Gun laws have never reduced crime. Ever. They only criminalize the innocent. By all means punish the hell out of the criminal misuse of guns, but merely banning does nothing to reduce crime. Never has, never will.
What evidence do you have to prove gun laws have never prevented crime? Even if you cherry pick an example or two, consider how many rapes, robberies or run of the mill petty thefts have been prevented because there are laws against them?
None? One? a score? more? But, do we toss away the penal code based on your logic? Or do we do the best we can to prevent rape, robbery, theft and mass murder by firearm?
What evidence do you have that gun laws reduce crime. You are making the assertion thus it is YOU who must support your claim.
A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.
Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?
Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.
We have defined the problem. the Criminal culture in the United STates…..they use guns to murder each other at high rates. The normal gun culture….doesn't.
How do you reduce gun crime among criminals….?
Time to turn the tables.................
The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............
So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?
It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.
Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]
Because once a license is needed the rich can price them to the point that only the rich and the criminals will have them. The criminals will of course enjoy the free range chickens they get to prey on and the rich, well, it is the rich pushing gun control isn't it.
How else can they truly enslave you. So long as you are armed they can't truly oppress you. Once they can get the guns away from the masses though, well then all bets are off aren't they.
I would think that those who claim to be against the one percenters could figure out that it is the one percenters who are working like hell to disarm them.
I think this post ^^^ is the work of a paranoid. But I digress. Consider my posts, wherein I've suggested licensing be done by the States, or those states which require them, and that the license be easy to get with a comprehensive background investigation.
Of course a license could be suspended or revoked for good cause, cause defined by a state legislature, and heard by an administrative law judge whose finding could result with an acqauital, a suspension for a period of time, or a lifetime revocation.
Fines, and other punishments, would become part of the Penal Code as enacted by the state legislature and the governor.
Violating the rules of the CDZ there sport, though I will give you a pass as it's me and I don't care what you spew. It is a fact that the rich are pushing gun control. Do you know what facts are? It is also a fact that the Occupy Movement (those that haven't been bought by Soros ((who is likewise a big gun control advocate)) are virulently anti corporate and anti wealthy people.
And once again you seem to not understand how the laws of this land are passed. Rich people buy their local government bureaucrat or politician. Ply them with gifts and then ask them for a favor. The favor is a law to be passed that will benefit the briber er buyer of the politician.
It's worked like that from time immemorial. The Founders of this country realized that that is how governments work, and more importantly they also knew beyond doubt that when that happens the poor people suffer. That's why they made it as difficult as possible for your masters to take this country over.
But hey, if you don't like the way things are done here I suggest you move to a country more to your liking. Almost all the other countries out there are like what you want so move there. Leave this experiment in government alone.
The need for gun control is a Red Herring.
Parents need to control the environment they raise their kids in. That's why 99.9% of gun owners don't make rights out of wrongs
-Geaux
The need for gun control is a Red Herring.
Parents need to control the environment they raise their kids in. That's why 99.9% of gun owners don't make rights out of wrongs
-Geaux
I agree with your first sentence, and yet who trains parents to parent?
