Captain, you are often a voice of reason, but I really wonder if you understand who we are dealing with. Unlike some of the liberal posters here, these democrat pols are not well-meaning folks who just want what's best for our country. They are hardleft radicals who see any weakness as an invitation to take more. They hate our values, our culture and our traditions. Compromise can be a virtue when both sides have something to gain. I don't see that here, or on the fiscal cliff either. Obama and the democrats have targeted republican constituencies and are using demagogic appeals to emotion to try to pressure republicans into breaking their campaign commitments. Obama figures he wins either way. He may be right because republicans instinctively go into a defensive crouch and start whimpering "we aren't as odious as you think" anytime they are challenged. How about they go out and make a case on the merits, like Larry Pratt was willing to do. Is it really so hard to stand up for values you believe in? Their timidy reinforces the impression they really don't believe in gun rights.
1) Not a single fire arm sale without background check (this must include gun shows) 2) Ban of semi-automatic rifles 3) Magazines should have no more than 10 bullets 4) Fist permit to own a gun should not be expensive or actually free since the owner will pay for background check. However each additional permitâs fee should increase exponentially. This will deter people for owning guns that they do not really need and at the same time allow true enthusiast to build their collections. Thatâs it. Once again, criminals do not commit these terrible shootings; it is usually law abiding citizens who do. And they know nothing about black markets. The ban is mostly to prevent easy access to assault weapons to psychos. CT tragedy would definitely have fewer casualties if his mother did not own ar15 rifle.
Again, I'm telling you that none of that will be passed in at least the next two years. But, you'll have to see it fail in Congress to believe me.
I absolutely agree with this sentence, "Technology can change, morality can change but the basic nature of human beings does not." I actually heard it for the first time as a kid as a quote from Sigrid Undset novel. I am just advocating a reasonable compromise. We need a right balance between our rights and safety. Owning a firearm to be able to defend yourself is one of core values of our society. Owning an assault rifle is not. I do not think your usage of a word traitor is proper.
Some or most of the above will pass in one form or another next year. I responded to Lucrum's question. I thought we agreed not to discuss the likelihood of its passage for now.
Laughable. If the republicans in congress go along with any of this, they will need armed guards at their district offices. Like I said all along, it's pointless to even discuss this or debate it. I'm not interested in a debate over "how many of your rights would you be willing to give up." None.
2nd Amendment gives us a right to "keep and bear arms". This is the core value that we all must protect without a doubt. The definition of Arms can be set by the governmental and/or supreme court of the land. I hope that ar15, which is a disguised m16, and its counter parts will not be easily available to any psycho to acquire. Still waiting for at lest one decent reason why a citizen needs this kind of a weapon.