I hunted long before I was 18 and I didn't have a permit.
Luckily for the local wildlife, I was a pretty poor hunter.
Luckily for the local wildlife, I was a pretty poor hunter.
Banning the sale of guns does not go against the second amendment
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
Adults, even completely innocent bystanders is one thing, kids are another. If we have to have an armed good guy all over every school with tons of metal detectors etc. I think it’s worth it.
Nip school shooting in bud then go hard on mental health issues. Manifesto spewing lunatics should not have the right to purchase, own or handle firearms.
Keep 2A and clarify the line. Obviously no citizen should have nukes but most should have the right to own shotguns, rifles and handguns at least.
We can come together and fix this. We’re still the USA and we can do TF we want if we all pull together. But we need to end kids being murdered at school NOW.
Nip school shooting in bud then go hard on mental health issues. Manifesto spewing lunatics should not have the right to purchase, own or handle firearms.
Keep 2A and clarify the line. Obviously no citizen should have nukes but most should have the right to own shotguns, rifles and handguns at least.
We can come together and fix this. We’re still the USA and we can do TF we want if we all pull together. But we need to end kids being murdered at school NOW.
Dead kids is a small price to pay so guys like @Whiskeydeltadeltatango can feel like a big man while firing their AR.
No. I said in OP, “Ban the sale of whatever gun you want to get rid of”. In other words, whatever type of gun you think is most responsible for all the shot you’re worried about, ban the sale of that specific type. Still plenty of other guns to go around.
Take him to a store that sells guns and buy one. He will need to fill out some paperwork and they will do a background check. In Iowa you no longer need any permit to purchase. Since he is under 21 he won't be able to purchase a handgun.
LOL I know how to buy a gun. Did you not read the damn thread title? Faulty just made sales illegal.
How would he ever become a “real” man without one? Or go to a “Guns N God” show?
These are feeble minded weak people we’re dealing with. They will NEVER use common sense because they need guns to feel adequate.
Sorry I confused your imaginary question with someone who had a real question.
I'm a white, male, who was born with a penis, that doesn't even list his pronouns on his linkdin page. Might want to look at the data.
Some on here would say that they shouldn't be allowed to buy guns since they are gender neutral
Great idea, next you can stop people from hearing anything you disagree with. You won't stop anyone from speaking or saying anything you disagree with, you just don't allow anyone to hear them. Force people to speak in a locked room alone. The first amendment doesn't say anything about freedom to hear just speech, right FAUlty?
You aren't a student of the BOR or Court decisions, are you?
Anything that effectively causes a right to be taken away is the same as taking the right away. It's that simple.
I don't think an outright ban would be the way to go. Personally I would like to see restrictions on magazine capacity, potentially rate of fire, caliber etc. Additionally I would like to see licensing and registration of firearms and safe storage requirements. Owners need to be held accountable for the use of their fire arms. If your firearm is used in the crime then you bare some liability. Penalty could include fines, and loss of all firearms. Reporting your firearm as stolen could protect you from some liability, however failure to properly store your weapon could increase exposure. Red flag laws could be useful but to be effective they require robust background checks and the licensing and registration of firearms. Also private sales need to have the same restrictions and therefore may require processing through a licensed dealer for a small fee. Supporting more mental health care would be great but without any legal changes/restrictions there would be limited benefit.
We get it. You don't want to try anything. You bring nothing to this discussion.
I’m not sure. I think the Firearm Owners Protection Act banned the ownership of new selective fire rifles, but it’s not super clear (at least to me). I’m not sure what brought about the legislation.
The biggest hurdle will be to define what weapons should be banned.
How does registration, or fines, or penalties, or insurance prevent a mass shooting?
No, you don't get it. I'm all for practical solutions. The key word is solutions. When people just throw sh!t against the wall that would make absolute no difference and not solve the problem, I question that.
So you answer the question. How would registration, or penalties or insurance solve mass shootings? We can narrow it down to this shooting. How would those things have stopped this shooting? Let's go a step further. Would a magazine limit of 10 rounds have stopped this shooting? How about a safe storage law?
Point to the laws that PREVENT any of the things below:
Murder
Rape
Burglarly/theft
Domestic abuse
Child Abuse
Sex trafficking
Drug trafficking
DUIs
Embezzlement
I don't really have a dog in the fight....I'm not anti-gun but I don't own one myself. I've shot guns, hunted, done the Machine Gun Vegas thing. Sure, it was fun, I just don't care to own a gun.
If you want to go to an extreme to make it harder for mass shootings to occur, limit civilian weapons to single shot rifles, single shot shotguns, and come up with a single shot handgun.
Limit purchase to one of each per person. At least it would be harder to kill a bunch of people at once if they had to reload and weren't carrying half a dozen weapons. Limit quantity of ammo.
Allow red flag laws with a universal nationwide registry.
Mandatory training for all three types of weapons.
Like I said, extreme.
Is it practical? No, because there will always be a black market. People will always scream bloody murder that their right to own 25 AR-15's is being infringed. But, if it saves one life, so be it.
If you want to go to an extreme to make it harder for mass shootings to occur, limit civilian weapons to single shot rifles, single shot shotguns, and come up with a single shot handgun.
Limit purchase to one of each per person. At least it would be harder to kill a bunch of people at once if they had to reload and weren't carrying half a dozen weapons. Limit quantity of ammo.
Allow red flag laws with a universal nationwide registry.
Mandatory training for all three types of weapons.
Like I said, extreme.
Is it practical? No, because there will always be a black market. People will always scream bloody murder that their right to own 25 AR-15's is being infringed. But, if it saves one life, so be it.
Ultimately I would hope that these types of measures would encourage more responsible gun ownership. Additionally if we are going to prevent guns from ending up in the wrong hands then it is helpful to have means for tracking and monitoring firearms. If people have to jump through some relatively minor hoops to own a gun then it may allow us to identify folks that shouldn't have access to firearms.
As sensitive as gun people seem to be, I believe just typing the OP is a violation of the 2nd.
I hear a lot about gun registration and background checks on this board and the national media. I own two guns; a .22and a .17. I won both in gun raffles and don’t really hunt any more. One rifle I picked up in Scheels, the other was through a private dealer. Both times I had to undergo a background check and registration process.
So my question is are there really states where you can walk into a store, whip out a credit card, and go home with a gun?
Also, I live in North Dakota, not exactly a liberal Mecca.
So my question is are there really states where you can walk into a store, whip out a credit card, and go home with a gun?
Also, I live in North Dakota, not exactly a liberal Mecca.
The right to keep and bear arms is specifically and uniquely tied to the need for a well-regulated militia designed to safeguard the state.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Therefore, membership in same should be mandated prior to purchase. And a bunch of Proud Boys carrying AR 15s doesn't constitute "well-regulated".
I would say that you're not understanding the problem here if you are willing to categorize this murderer as simply an irresponsible gun owner...
I would say you are making a lot of logical leaps to support your narrative.
What suggestions do you have?
In Iowa? How did your son purchase these weapons when he isn't even old enough to buy the ammo?
