|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 18, 2016 2:17:41 GMT
So according to a few here, we should just shut the fuck up and let the gun cup runneth over. "Who gives a shit about gun control?" "Guns don't kill people" "Mass Shooters are just going to do it anyway" "You don't get a voice because you don't own guns" "you don't count because your a liberal" "or a Democrat" "my right to have assault/military type guns trumps your right to breath air" "children mass murdered by gunfire? Who cares?" People sicken me. Yes, that's exactly what I said. Might as well have.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 18, 2016 2:37:34 GMT
So according to a few here, we should just shut the fuck up and let the gun cup runneth over. "Who gives a shit about gun control?" "Guns don't kill people" "Mass Shooters are just going to do it anyway" "You don't get a voice because you don't own guns" "you don't count because your a liberal" "or a Democrat" "my right to have assault/military type guns trumps your right to breath air" "children mass murdered by gunfire? Who cares?" People sicken me. Nobody is saying that. You and I were having a rational discussion, did you just abandon it? People are simply trying to get the point across that you have to know something about what you're trying to make laws about, otherwise you can't accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. See here is the thing from the other side. I gave what I feel are rational ideas and was told that since I didn't own a gun that gun owners would not listen to me. I responded to the question about repealing the second amendment in what I felt was a logical way and was basically told that my opinion did not matter. So that is where conversation breaks down. As someone who is personally anti-gun but not for repealing the second amendment (and not against others owning guns) I think my opinions actually represent many others who are open to having a conversation. My dad was a hunter, his father a police officer, and I have shot before when I was younger with my dad. I am not naive enough to believe this country will ever (or should ever) take away the right to have guns. But what I would hope for is that gun owners be open to a dialogue and look beyond what is good just for their own house. Before people leave the hospital with a new baby they have to show they have a car seat-nobody can force them to use it, but they have to have one. They are more likely to use one of they have one. Same with how I feel about gun safes-I can't force someone to use it, but I do feel strongly that if it was required to own one than more people would use it. Think about all the children who shoot someone else or are shot accidentally. I am sure all of their parents would hope that their guns had been locked away instead of found. There are laws and regulations that are supposed to keep people safe. Many people do not follow them. But that does not mean that we should abandon any of them because some people would still not follow them.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:12:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 2:43:02 GMT
I responded to the question about repealing the second amendment in what I felt was a logical way and was basically told that my opinion did not matter. So that is where conversation breaks down. Yep.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:12:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 2:45:20 GMT
Nobody is saying that. You and I were having a rational discussion, did you just abandon it? People are simply trying to get the point across that you have to know something about what you're trying to make laws about, otherwise you can't accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. See here is the thing from the other side. I gave what I feel are rational ideas and was told that since I didn't own a gun that gun owners would not listen to me. I responded to the question about repealing the second amendment in what I felt was a logical way For what it's worth, I thought you did too. I thought you gave very rational, well thought ideas. It's not necessarily that I didn't agree with you, but there are problems with some of the things you said.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 18, 2016 2:50:18 GMT
And that is where a dialogue can happen. But the "well own a gun for 5o years and then talk" is what usually seems to happen and causes a shut down of ideas with both sides feeling that the other is being unreasonable.
People legislate and vote on things that may not personally impact them all the time. Abortion and gay marriage come to mind immediately. So the idea that nobody will listen to me because it does not impact me directly makes no sense. I teach kindergarten. I have had to stand in a bathroom with 25 kindergarteners and a flashlight while we practice shelter in place drills and done fake lockdowns in case there is ever a shooter. So it absolutely impacts me just as it does everyone in this country.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 18, 2016 2:53:09 GMT
Nobody is saying that. You and I were having a rational discussion, did you just abandon it? People are simply trying to get the point across that you have to know something about what you're trying to make laws about, otherwise you can't accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. See here is the thing from the other side. I gave what I feel are rational ideas and was told that since I didn't own a gun that gun owners would not listen to me. I responded to the question about repealing the second amendment in what I felt was a logical way and was basically told that my opinion did not matter. So that is where conversation breaks down. As someone who is personally anti-gun but not for repealing the second amendment (and not against others owning guns) I think my opinions actually represent many others who are open to having a conversation. My dad was a hunter, his father a police officer, and I have shot before when I was younger with my dad. I am not naive enough to believe this country will ever (or should ever) take away the right to have guns. But what I would hope for is that gun owners be open to a dialogue and look beyond what is good just for their own house. Before people leave the hospital with a new baby they have to show they have a car seat-nobody can force them to use it, but they have to have one. They are more likely to use one of they have one. Same with how I feel about gun safes-I can't force someone to use it, but I do feel strongly that if it was required to own one than more people would use it. Think about all the children who shoot someone else or are shot accidentally. I am sure all of their parents would hope that their guns had been locked away instead of found. There are laws and regulations that are supposed to keep people safe. Many people do not follow them. But that does not mean that we should abandon any of them because some people would still not follow them. This.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 18, 2016 2:57:56 GMT
I responded to the question about repealing the second amendment in what I felt was a logical way and was basically told that my opinion did not matter. So that is where conversation breaks down. Yep. This exactly. Instead those of us who are middle ground are made to feel insignificant , that our suggestions are stupid, that keeping the status quo as it is is the ONLY way, that we are wrong, or liberal, or _____________ you fill in the blank. We post something that is true, real, and are interrogated to the point of dissecting it apart to be told that it's not going to work. We're made to feel that gun owner rights are more important that lives of others. Why on earth try to even continue to get beat up even more?
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 18, 2016 3:02:50 GMT
Yep. This exactly. Instead those of us who are middle ground are made to feel insignificant , that our suggestions are stupid, that keeping the status quo as it is is the ONLY way, that we are wrong, or liberal, or _____________ you fill in the blank. We post something that is true, real, and are interrogated to the point of dissecting it apart to be told that it's not going to work. We're made to feel that gun owner rights are more important that lives of others. Why on earth try to even continue to get beat up even more? are you really middle ground?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:12:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 3:09:39 GMT
Yep. This exactly. Instead those of us who are middle ground are made to feel insignificant , that our suggestions are stupid, that keeping the status quo as it is is the ONLY way, that we are wrong, or liberal, or _____________ you fill in the blank. We post something that is true, real, and are interrogated to the point of dissecting it apart to be told that it's not going to work. We're made to feel that gun owner rights are more important that lives of others. Why on earth try to even continue to get beat up even more? Can I suggest you "scroll and roll" passed the inflammatory posts, as happymomma suggested in 2 other threads and stick to the real conversation you were interested in having?
|
|
|
Post by LiLi on Jun 18, 2016 3:10:32 GMT
I am going to be naughty. No. If you don't want a gun, you are at liberty to not own one. You are not at liberty to exist in a world without guns. Sorry. "If you don't want to marry some one of the same sex, you are at liberty not to." I am going to remember that for future conversation. Non-gun owners shouldn't get a say in making gun laws? Well that sure is silly! That seems to fit for pro-choice and same sex marriage, too! No??
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 18, 2016 3:11:18 GMT
This exactly. Instead those of us who are middle ground are made to feel insignificant , that our suggestions are stupid, that keeping the status quo as it is is the ONLY way, that we are wrong, or liberal, or _____________ you fill in the blank. We post something that is true, real, and are interrogated to the point of dissecting it apart to be told that it's not going to work. We're made to feel that gun owner rights are more important that lives of others. Why on earth try to even continue to get beat up even more? are you really middle ground? Yes. I've posted many times about it.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 18, 2016 3:12:57 GMT
Obviously you read it wrong. You can certainly have an opinion. I personally think that your (global you) opinion as a non gun owner is uninformed, but have whatever opinion you want. But don't expect gun owners to let non gun owners try to make the rules. Fortunately, I am NOT a non-gun-owner. So I guess I'm in. But seriously. Gun owners may not like it, but everyone gets to voice an opinion (ETA which means, to help make the rules). I expect fervent gun people might want to try talking nicely to gun control people (who actually are sometimes the same people) instead of just telling them to sit down and shut up. Nicely said lucyg. And I read BF post the same way you did. You didn't read it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 18, 2016 3:17:49 GMT
This exactly. Instead those of us who are middle ground are made to feel insignificant , that our suggestions are stupid, that keeping the status quo as it is is the ONLY way, that we are wrong, or liberal, or _____________ you fill in the blank. We post something that is true, real, and are interrogated to the point of dissecting it apart to be told that it's not going to work. We're made to feel that gun owner rights are more important that lives of others. Why on earth try to even continue to get beat up even more? Can I suggest you "scroll and roll" passed the inflammatory posts, as happymomma suggested in 2 other threads and stick to the real conversation you were interested in having? It's proving impossible to even do that here. I've spent the last 5 days talking to many people in the community about guns, gun control, Orlando, murders, and here it gets shut down because of all the reasons above.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:12:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 3:29:56 GMT
Can I suggest you "scroll and roll" passed the inflammatory posts, as happymomma suggested in 2 other threads and stick to the real conversation you were interested in having? It's proving impossible to even do that here. I've spent the last 5 days talking to many people in the community about guns, gun control, Orlando, murders, and here it gets shut down because of all the reasons above. You and I were having a rational, respectful conversation, so it's not impossible. I'm not sure why you abandoned it.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 18, 2016 3:38:22 GMT
Gia you said I made rational points with some mistakes? Would you expand on that?
And apologies if I don't respond right away, 3 teenage boys in the basement and another 4that just left have me very tired, lol.
|
|
|
Post by DinCA on Jun 18, 2016 4:06:04 GMT
I'm not a gun owner but my husband is. And I have many, many friends and family who own guns.
Having said that, while I am opposed to a repeal of the second amendment, I do think it's time we make changes to the existing laws.
We should make it much harder to purchase a gun. There should be a waiting period and a more intensive background check. It would be difficult to police but I am also in favor of more restrictions when selling a gun privately. And if those restrictions are not followed, then the person selling the gun should be held liable if a crime is committed with the gun.
I'm also very open to discussion about other restrictions as well. And just so you know, I'm a republican who also wants change. Not all of us are digging in our heels about this issue.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 18, 2016 4:42:40 GMT
I'm not a gun owner but my husband is. And I have many, many friends and family who own guns. Having said that, while I am opposed to a repeal of the second amendment, I do think it's time we make changes to the existing laws. We should make it much harder to purchase a gun. There should be a waiting period and a more intensive background check. It would be difficult to police but I am also in favor of more restrictions when selling a gun privately. And if those restrictions are not followed, then the person selling the gun should be held liable if a crime is committed with the gun. I'm also very open to discussion about other restrictions as well. And just so you know, I'm a republican who also wants change. Not all of us are digging in our heels about this issue. the only way you could police the private sellers is to mandate registration of guns. I can't imagine gun owners wanting that to happen. I don't mind a waiting period, but that isn't going to stop mass murders, crimes of passion maybe, but not mass murders. Mass shootings are often planned and I doubt they would mind the waiting period. I think that there should be a way to flag a person due to certain mental illness or if a psychologist or psychiatrist believes a person to be a threat. What would a more intensive background check include? I'm not arguing against it, but want to know what it will look for.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:12:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 4:55:48 GMT
Gia you said I made rational points with some mistakes? Would you expand on that? And apologies if I don't respond right away, 3 teenage boys in the basement and another 4that just left have me very tired, lol. I wouldn't (and didn't) call them mistakes at all. As I said it's all well thought out, logical and sounds very reasonable. No one in their right mind would be against educating gun owners/users. It's a very good idea. It's when you make it mandatory that you get into problems. The right to own a gun "shall not be infringed". So, if you can't afford the classes then you can not defend yourself. That's infringement. Law abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves will follow this law and will be outgunned by the person that wants to over power them and who will NOT follow the law. First you'd have to define "military grade weapons". I agree that any loopholes should be closed. The government should make the the background check system (NICS) open to the general public so that the guy who buys a table and just wants to sell a few of his own guns at a gun show has access to the system. Right now it's a closed system. Most of the sellers at a gun show are gun shop owners and are required by law to do a background check. They make it available for the guy who just wants to sell a couple so he can pay to use the system, but in some places it's his option. I know in Colorado it's mandatory for even him and they could make that mandatory everywhere. I disagree with the no fly list being used in that way. Too many people are on their incorrectly (even some people inHomeland Security are on it) And the way they have it set up is unconstitutional. No due process and all that. Not to be snarky but, weren't you just speaking about the other side making statements meant to shut down the conversation? You're implying here that if you don't agree, you aren't a responsible gun owner. And you did it again. Statements meant to end the conversation. I'm hoping you can see with my responses to your ideas that people have different ideas of what is common sense on this subject. It is NOT that they want more mass shootings (and you must sincerely know that) it's that there are reasons for why they believe as they do.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 18, 2016 4:59:01 GMT
I don't know that I would want that. Could you imagine the ex girlfriend checking out the new girl or the people looking at their neighbors or...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:12:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 5:10:27 GMT
I don't know that I would want that. Could you imagine the ex girlfriend checking out the new girl or the people looking at their neighbors or... Okay, you're right, "open to the general public" is a mistake. Maybe more like have the service "available" from the gun shop owner?
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 18, 2016 5:19:47 GMT
I don't know that I would want that. Could you imagine the ex girlfriend checking out the new girl or the people looking at their neighbors or... Okay, you're right, "open to the general public" is a mistake. Maybe more like have the service "available" from the gun shop owner? I would be okay with that
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jun 18, 2016 5:20:07 GMT
I'm not an expert on guns by any means but even I know that banning the AR15 will do absolutely nothing to prevent mass shootings. The problem is high capacity clips which can be used in other semi automatic rifles and handguns. An AR15 can't do anything more than any other semi automatic rifle that accepts a clip. However the AR15 is useless for hunting big game unless you are a very very good shot as the caliber (223) isn't big enough to bring down elk or moose. Most hunters use a 270 or 300 caliber rifle. Now a rifle has more killing power than a handgun due to (I think) the higher velocity of the bullet being fired through the longer barrel of a rifle vs a handgun. But that's not going to matter as most mass shootings happen at close range. Reducing clip size is going to cause the shooter to stop more often and reload which will presumably give the good guys a window to take the shooter down. ETA I'm a liberal in favor of common sense gun control. Battling over trying to outlaw assault weapons is pointless. and that's a good thing. too bad those in 'control' don't bother doing it...
they don't enforce the laws we have now!
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jun 18, 2016 5:42:13 GMT
Repeal completely? No I don't want that. Amend current laws and stop loopholes? Yes indeed. I would like mandatory gun education (like we do with drivers education) that would be necessary before purchasing a gun. Also passing a test on keeping a gun safe in your home/vehicle. Receipt or proof of a gun safe or way to keep the guns from getting in the hands of children (yes I know not everyone would use them, but we require car seats for young children and not everybody uses them. Far more use them than would if there was no such requirement. I feel the same should be for any guns.) I have seen the majority of gun owners say it is irresponsible to not have guns secured, so I think this is reasonable. Restrictions (if not an outright ban) on the high caliber clips of ammunition that have been discussed in this thread. Military grade weapons to be kept at firing ranges vs at homes. Loopholes that are present at gun shows regarding background checks to be closed. Second hand purchases by anyone should require background checks and mandatory waiting periods no matter where or when the weapons are purchased. Ability to stop anyone with a restraining order, prior violent crime convictions, or name on the no fly list to never be able to purchase a weapon of any kind. I do not want to restrict how many guns someone has at all. I do not own any guns and would never buy one or allow one in my home, but I do feel many people are responsible. If you are a responsible gun owner I don't think you would disagree with any of the above guidelines because it is using a more common sense approach (IMO). The problem I see is the NRA is so hell bent on not providing any restrictions at all and they are so powerful that there seems to be no hope for common sense. They would rather have more mass shootings and no restrictions at all is what it seems. Why? I don't have children at home. I don't have grandchildren. There are no children in our neighborhood because we live in an adults only neighborhood. Please explain to me why you think that I should have to store my guns in a way that protects children and PROVE it before I can purchase a gun. ETA: For what it's worth, most of my guns are stored in a safe, but that's to ensure that they aren't stolen. I would be interested in knowing the answer to your question for people that have no children/grandchildren/child visitors. Washington state already has background checks, 10 day waiting period for the background check to come back, no selling to felones or those convicted of DV. Since the no fly list is has so many inaccuracies, we do not include that.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jun 18, 2016 6:07:01 GMT
Why? I don't have children at home. I don't have grandchildren. There are no children in our neighborhood because we live in an adults only neighborhood. Please explain to me why you think that I should have to store my guns in a way that protects children and PROVE it before I can purchase a gun. ETA: For what it's worth, most of my guns are stored in a safe, but that's to ensure that they aren't stolen. I would be interested in knowing the answer to your question for people that have no children/grandchildren/child visitors. Washington state already has background checks, 10 day waiting period for the background check to come back, no selling to felones or those convicted of DV. Since the no fly list is has so many inaccuracies, we do not include that. from what I've heard Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country... how's that working for them?
time to work on enforcing the laws we do have and maybe working on why people are so violent these days.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jun 18, 2016 12:17:30 GMT
I am middle of the road. These discussions make me a little crossed eyed because both sides seem to be dismissive to what I think. I don't want outright bans, I don't want to repeal the 2nd amendment, I am not sure that using the terror watch list/no fly list as one of the boxes that should be ticked for gun ownership. I also don't think that some of the publicly available guns should be, I don't think that larger capacity magazines are necessary, I do think that we should be shoring up the laws we have.
Middle of the road. I want to have a discussion. I don't want to be patronized, I want to learn about what I don't know. But it seems like that is hard to do right now because people feel strongly about their position and when I ask questions, it is assumed that I support one side or the other and the conversation stops.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 18, 2016 13:21:13 GMT
I am middle of the road. These discussions make me a little crossed eyed because both sides seem to be dismissive to what I think. I don't want outright bans, I don't want to repeal the 2nd amendment, I am not sure that using the terror watch list/no fly list as one of the boxes that should be ticked for gun ownership. I also don't think that some of the publicly available guns should be, I don't think that larger capacity magazines are necessary, I do think that we should be shoring up the laws we have. Middle of the road. I want to have a discussion. I don't want to be patronized, I want to learn about what I don't know. But it seems like that is hard to do right now because people feel strongly about their position and when I ask questions, it is assumed that I support one side or the other and the conversation stops. I'll converse with you and agree with what you are saying.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:12:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 14:55:00 GMT
It's hard to have any discussion about guns when more then half of the folks who shall we say are pro gun always manage to get these two pharses in their opening discussion about gun laws :
* More gun laws do nothing but penalize law biding gun owners. Criminals won't follow the laws and still get guns.
* Look how well the gun laws work in Chicago.
And a new one popped up yesterday.
*If you are not a gun owner you don't get to make the rules. I believe the original intent of the comment was "if you are not a gun owner you don't get a say period".
On the "less guns" side we are accused of having some secret agenda to get rid of all guns. Maybe that was true around Sandy Hook but I personally haven't seen it for years in these discussions.
What I want to see done is the following:
1. All gun laws are Federal laws so they will apply equally across the country. The current laws are so piecemeal they are bound to fail. Uniform laws have a better chance of working.
2. Background checks on all gun sales. Yes that includes private sales.
3. Not all types of guns should be available to the public.
4. Folks on the no fly list or terror watch list should not be able to buy guns.
We are a country of laws. There is a reason for those laws and that is to stop one of us from harming another one of us. I was thinking about the different laws last night and the intent was always the same and it's to protect the citizens of this country. But yet when it comes to gun laws there is this resistance that I don't understand. Yes criminals will break the laws, look at our prisons, but that is no reason why gun laws, that work, shouldn't be enacted.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 18, 2016 15:00:50 GMT
I do see how my comment about "responsible gun owners will agree" could be seen as snarky and I apologize. Better said by me would have been that these are some things I have discussed with friends who *i* feel are responsible gun owners and I feel are open to discussion.
As to the gun safe comment and kids:children. If someone breaks u to your house and guns are unsecured there is a better chance of them being stolen by a criminal and used for more crime. Locking them up doesn't guarantee they won't ever be stolen (like wearing a seat belt doesn't guarantee you will survive a car accident) but it would be less likely.
As far as gun owners not wanting their guns registered-why? We register cars and dogs where I live-why shouldn't we register weapons?
As far as not paying for education there are many things you have to pay for and have money for to own. Why should a gun or weapon be any different? If you can't afford classes and a safe, perhaps you can't afford a gun.
The private sale loopholes absolutely need closed.
Gis what eould You consider reasonable restrictions?
I have seen NRA representatives and they seem to think any and all restrictions are unacceptable. Clearly something in our country needs to change in regards to gun safety. So what are gun owners willing to push for with the NRA and pressure them to change?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 18, 2016 15:16:23 GMT
It's hard to have any discussion about guns when more then half of the folks who shall we say are pro gun always manage to get these two pharses in their opening discussion about gun laws : * More gun laws do nothing but penalize law biding gun owners. Criminals won't follow the laws and still get guns. * Look how well the gun laws work in Chicago. And a new one popped up yesterday. *If you are not a gun owner you don't get to make the rules. I believe the original intent of the comment was "if you are not a gun owner you don't get a say period". On the "less guns" side we are accused of having some secret agenda to get rid of all guns. Maybe that was true around Sandy Hook but I personally haven't seen it for years in these discussions. What I want to see done is the following: 1. All gun laws are Federal laws so they will apply equally across the country. The current laws are so piecemeal they are bound to fail. Uniform laws have a better chance of working. 2. Background checks on all gun sales. Yes that includes private sales. 3. Not all types of guns should be available to the public. 4. Folks on the no fly list or terror watch list should not be able to buy guns. We are a country of laws. There is a reason for those laws and that is to stop one of us from harming another one of us. I was thinking about the different laws last night and the intent was always the same and it's to protect the citizens of this country. But yet when it comes to gun laws there is this resistance that I don't understand. Yes criminals will break the laws, look at our prisons, but that is no reason why gun laws, that work, shouldn't be enacted. Thank you for typing out what was in my head. So often we get accused of throwing "conversation stoppers" into our opinions, but I think the three typical gun owner responses you list are equally designed to stop conversation. I would also add "infringement" to your list. It seems most gun rights folks will agree to x, y and z restrictions and requirements, but there's always a line in the sand where the proposed requirement is suddenly an "infringement." I'm done trying to present facts about what gun control laws have accomplished in other countries, or about the documented statistics about the safety of guns in the home. It's become clear to me that most here are not interested in facts, but rather in using a poorly worded and unclear sentence written over 200 years ago to justify their own preferences and interests. One thing I know is that no one on the side of better gun control is working to protect their own interests, other than the basic one of not wanting to see people injured or killed. We have no product to sell, no favorite hobby to protect, no way of life to legitimize. I find it mind boggling that somehow this is seen as the side of villainy, and the more I see opinions here confirming that way of thinking, the less inclined I am to try to engage in conversation about it. I am not the bad guy because I object to people being killed on a daily basis due in large part to the ready availability of guns in our country.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 18, 2016 15:39:30 GMT
Okay, you're right, "open to the general public" is a mistake. Maybe more like have the service "available" from the gun shop owner? I would be okay with that I would go a step further and mandate that any gun sales/transfers have to go through a licensed gun dealer. And by transfer I mean passing your guns down to your children/grandchildren. I think this would need to be a meaningful part of gun control reform in order to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill and unstable people.
|
|