cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Buck plans on getting robbed by a guy armed with a bowling ball.
At least he's housebroken. cn
Buck plans on getting robbed by a guy armed with a bowling ball.
Background checks? seems foolish on it's face.
Registration? a very very good idea except that in my belief it is unconstitutional and violates a citizen's right to privacy, furthermore it would lend power to a government that would enable them to strip a society of its weapons in the easiest way possible.
Limiting types of weapons? sure, limiting which ones? Big ones? little concealable ones? Popular ones? scary ones?
Limiting magazine sizes? I am behind that one but all it may ever do is slow the rate of carnage and that doesn't seem to be enough for our gun toting friends who hold that if a law isn't 100 percent effective there is no reason to enact it at all.
Gun free zones? Now isn't this a matter of personal right? I think it is interesting that the right is upset when the government wants to instill it's laws in religious settings - if a religious institution doesn't want to support abortion then no government should force it to do so, but this statement presupposes that government might insist that individuals be allowed to carry their weapons into churches regardless of the churche's stance on firearms on their premsisis.
Make all dangerous weapons illegal - well why not - that is the cure righ there. now all we have to do is define what a "dangerous weapon" is.
Limit amunition? sure! Now how. I have always had a problem making quantity a defining characteristic of legality. In other words, how can the posession of one bullet be legal but the posession of 20 not be? This goes to the issue of pseudoephedrin. Why is the purchase of two boxes of something legal ok but the purchase of 5 boxes of the same thing illegal?
Other? yes, there is the other, there must be something that will serve to inhibit mass shootings through some sort of law or combination of laws.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+(Big+Government)
Ahem... hey look here's an article saying more people are killed with hammers and clubs than guns....amazing.
Desert Dude you are my Freaking hero!I chose "other".
I would allow private citizens to be armed, either open-carry or concealed at the discretion of the citizen. This would allow a response more effective than the official, public school strategy of throwing erasers at the armed crazy person.
For those of you who want common sense gun control laws, please explain how any of your preferred common sense measures would have prevented Adam Lanza from murdering all those children and teachers.
Ok clearly you and I both know why selling people large quantities of pseudoephedrine over the counter is a really bad idea.Background checks? seems foolish on it's face.
Registration? a very very good idea except that in my belief it is unconstitutional and violates a citizen's right to privacy, furthermore it would lend power to a government that would enable them to strip a society of its weapons in the easiest way possible.
Limiting types of weapons? sure, limiting which ones? Big ones? little concealable ones? Popular ones? scary ones?
Limiting magazine sizes? I am behind that one but all it may ever do is slow the rate of carnage and that doesn't seem to be enough for our gun toting friends who hold that if a law isn't 100 percent effective there is no reason to enact it at all.
Gun free zones? Now isn't this a matter of personal right? I think it is interesting that the right is upset when the government wants to instill it's laws in religious settings - if a religious institution doesn't want to support abortion then no government should force it to do so, but this statement presupposes that government might insist that individuals be allowed to carry their weapons into churches regardless of the churche's stance on firearms on their premsisis.
Make all dangerous weapons illegal - well why not - that is the cure righ there. now all we have to do is define what a "dangerous weapon" is.
Limit amunition? sure! Now how. I have always had a problem making quantity a defining characteristic of legality. In other words, how can the posession of one bullet be legal but the posession of 20 not be? This goes to the issue of pseudoephedrin. Why is the purchase of two boxes of something legal ok but the purchase of 5 boxes of the same thing illegal?
Other? yes, there is the other, there must be something that will serve to inhibit mass shootings through some sort of law or combination of laws.
Ok, have to ask.. and this could very well be inflammatory and seem as if I'm looking to start a fight, but it's not - I have a need to try to understand the fucked up logic of the 2 retards that voted for gun-free zones? The reason I ask.. if one is willing to obtain a gun illegally, hellbent on killing people.. do you think they will say "Oh, there's a 36-06 sign, perhaps I should not bring my gun in there and kill people." ? Honestly?
The logic behind gun free zones is that unstable people such as yourself don't legally bring a gun into such a place like a school, and get into an argument about how great FOX News is and lose your temper and pull out your gun. Is that so difficult to comprehend? Half the population has an IQ below average and almost 30% believe god determines the outcome of sporting events, yea, I trust these idiots to keep control of themselves.
The logic behind gun free zones is that unstable people such as yourself don't legally bring a gun into such a place like a school, and get into an argument about how great FOX News is and lose your temper and pull out your gun. Is that so difficult to comprehend? Half the population has an IQ below average and almost 30% believe god determines the outcome of sporting events, yea, I trust these idiots to keep control of themselves.
The logic behind gun free zones is that unstable people such as yourself don't legally bring a gun into such a place like a school, and get into an argument about how great FOX News is and lose your temper and pull out your gun. Is that so difficult to comprehend? Half the population has an IQ below average and almost 30% believe god determines the outcome of sporting events, yea, I trust these idiots to keep control of themselves.
So, how many shootings result from that situation in NON gun free zones? Not too many. I would bet WAY fewer than murders in so-called gun free zones.The logic behind gun free zones is that unstable people such as yourself don't legally bring a gun into such a place like a school, and get into an argument about how great FOX News is and lose your temper and pull out your gun. Is that so difficult to comprehend? Half the population has an IQ below average and almost 30% believe god determines the outcome of sporting events, yea, I trust these idiots to keep control of themselves.
Mine are my babies. Care for them and they'll take care for you.I've been thinking real hard lately about this and the threads like it. My gun is already my bitch, I don't see the problem.
So, how many shootings result from that situation in NON gun free zones? Not too many. I would bet WAY fewer than murders in so-called gun free zones.
You're saying a majority of the 10,000 people killed every year were in gun free zones? Are you fucking kidding?