No. I would also like to add hell no.
Do not ban handguns
Make restrictions (specify)
No. I would also like to add hell no.
No Lives Matter
NO, it is a silly question
a better question is
should politicians who want to ban handguns be denied armed protection?
clearly the answer is yes
politicians' bodyguards should be limited to the weapons those politicians deem suitable for other civilians to own. Thus the gaping asshole Bloomberg's keepers should be limited to 7 shot pistols and they should be wearing signs saying WE ONLY CARRY SEVEN ROUND WEAPONS JUST AS HIZZONER HAS DECREED FOR THE REST OF YOU PEASANTS
But certainly buyng a gun at a gun show should come with the same background check one has to go through in a pawn shop, right? That's one glaring issue. Stating that doing away with the Hughes Amendment is the "only gun reform" needed is a bit irresponsible. I would say the same thing about a gun owner who stores his guns in a way that allows teenage idiots to tote one to school to kill his favorite bully.
So the way I see it, we can whine and whine about the direction of the wind as being a blow to our 2nd Amendment rights, but we don't seem to care about holding anybody responsible to those rights. In fact, its the only right that has no sense of responsibility attached to it. Even the Freedom of Speech comes with laws that prohibit you from slandering or causing riots. Even driving a car comes with laws of safety and insurance. But a gun? Absolutely nothing. I can buy my gun, store it on the living room carpet for all to touch and handle, and be exonerated if it is used in a school shooting.
Why people are petrified anytime someone in Washington even say's the word gun is beyond me.
Last edited by MSgt; 04-04-13 at 10:11 AM.
1) you cannot buy any automatic made after May 19, 1986
2) that firearms that once cost 2000 dollars now cost 20,000 dollars as a result.
3) there are plenty of laws that prohibit misuse of ANY Weapon
your concept of responsibility is moronic-banning something for everyone is irrational
The fact that you wish to celebrate irresponsibility as some sort of show of your unendangered rights is moronic.
Last edited by MSgt; 04-04-13 at 11:29 AM.
You confuse-many times-the difference betweeen laws that ban the possession of something for EVERYONE because SOME misuse it with the proper laws that ban IMPROPER USE.
you are basically a statist and have control freak cravings. you think the governemnt should CONTROL everyone for no reason other than a few violate proper laws against improper use
I bet my last dollar you wouldn't have any chance against me in any recognized shooting contest involving an M4 rifle or an M9 beretta. I am better trained than you are which is why I have represented the USA in world level competition and why I was a sponsored professional IPSC/USPSA shooter. SO if TRAINING is what matters than your silly support for blanket bans goes out the window
Last edited by MSgt; 04-04-13 at 12:01 PM.
for those who have no clue what the hughes amendment is (including MSgt) it was a poison pill added improperly to a firearms owner protection act by a congressman who wanted to derail a law that was going to pass. Even though there was basically ZERO cases of legally owned machine guns being used in crime, the amendment banned registration of any machine gun made after May 19, 1986 meaning only law enforcement agencies and the military, along with some Title II makers and class III dealers could own any such weapon made after May 19, 1986-such firearms could not be "registered" for the purpose of civilian ownersihp.
This law made ownership of pre-existing machine guns far harder for anyone but the rich
claiming it had no effect on anything other than machine guns is an admission of not understanding what the law is about
but its great that liberals want machine guns to be only owned by the rich