"common Sense Gun Laws"

[Asclepias]

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him?

Mind your own business.

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him? You can't deny a law abiding person his rights because you think he might maybe possible sometime in the near or distant future commit a crime. if you could then we would be confiscating drivers' licenses because people might drink before getting behind the wheel.

Mind your own business.

Bullshit and ad hominem..

Parents werent created for the purpose of killing their children.

I can come up with a list of things people dont need but again most or all of them were not created with the purpose of being able to kill another human.

I just told what my issue was. I dont think he should have that much firepower unless he is in the military and even the military doesnt allow a solider access to that much fire power on a whim. Using a license is not that same. People can and do get their licenses taken if they are a threat to the public.

I am minding my business.

So now it's the purpose?

Anyone can commit a crime at any time according to you right?

Just because a guy has a gun collection does not mean he is more prone to committing any crime than anyone else.

You cannot justify restricting a person's rights because you are afraid.

If he has done nothing wrong then what he does in none of your business. Period.

Yes we can justify restricting your rights due to fear. Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or sawed off shotgun.

I never said a person with a gun collection is more prone to committing crime. Stop deflecting.

That's exactly what you're saying.

If a guy owns too many guns in your opinion you think he's going to kill everyone in your neighborhood.

It seems you not the gun owner are the paranoid one.

No its not what I am saying. Where do you see that? The question was asked what was my issue (opinion) with people that owned a arsenal. I said that they didn't need it. Not only that...they are most likely paranoid. The person with the arsenal is more capable of doing serious damage than a person with 1 gun. Dont get butthurt and start claiming I said something you cant quote me as saying.

 

[RKMBrown]

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him?

Mind your own business.

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him? You can't deny a law abiding person his rights because you think he might maybe possible sometime in the near or distant future commit a crime. if you could then we would be confiscating drivers' licenses because people might drink before getting behind the wheel.

Mind your own business.

Bullshit and ad hominem..

Parents werent created for the purpose of killing their children.

I can come up with a list of things people dont need but again most or all of them were not created with the purpose of being able to kill another human.

I just told what my issue was. I dont think he should have that much firepower unless he is in the military and even the military doesnt allow a solider access to that much fire power on a whim. Using a license is not that same. People can and do get their licenses taken if they are a threat to the public.

I am minding my business.

So now it's the purpose?

Anyone can commit a crime at any time according to you right?

Just because a guy has a gun collection does not mean he is more prone to committing any crime than anyone else.

You cannot justify restricting a person's rights because you are afraid.

If he has done nothing wrong then what he does in none of your business. Period.

Yes we can justify restricting your rights due to fear. Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or sawed off shotgun.

I never said a person with a gun collection is more prone to committing crime. Stop deflecting.

That's exactly what you're saying.

If a guy owns too many guns in your opinion you think he's going to kill everyone in your neighborhood.

It seems you not the gun owner are the paranoid one.

No its not what I am saying. Where do you see that? The question was asked what was my issue (opinion) with people that owned a arsenal. I said that they didn't need it. Not only that they are most likely paranoid. Dont get butthurt and start claiming I said something you cant quote me as saying.

Define arsenal. I've got a dozen weapons. Each has it's own purpose. They are tools. You use the right tool for the right job. Some times you have back up tools. None of my guns are owned out of fear. I live in the woods, I hunt.

My Dad has a couple dozen guns and rifles. Some are just collected stuff..

 

[Skull Pilot]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

So you see you said you think a guy who you think owns too many guns will blow up your whole neighborhood.

I didn't make it up. You said it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him?

Mind your own business.

Bullshit and ad hominem..

Parents werent created for the purpose of killing their children.

I can come up with a list of things people dont need but again most or all of them were not created with the purpose of being able to kill another human.

I just told what my issue was. I dont think he should have that much firepower unless he is in the military and even the military doesnt allow a solider access to that much fire power on a whim. Using a license is not that same. People can and do get their licenses taken if they are a threat to the public.

I am minding my business.

So now it's the purpose?

Anyone can commit a crime at any time according to you right?

Just because a guy has a gun collection does not mean he is more prone to committing any crime than anyone else.

You cannot justify restricting a person's rights because you are afraid.

If he has done nothing wrong then what he does in none of your business. Period.

Yes we can justify restricting your rights due to fear. Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or sawed off shotgun.

I never said a person with a gun collection is more prone to committing crime. Stop deflecting.

That's exactly what you're saying.

If a guy owns too many guns in your opinion you think he's going to kill everyone in your neighborhood.

It seems you not the gun owner are the paranoid one.

No its not what I am saying. Where do you see that? The question was asked what was my issue (opinion) with people that owned a arsenal. I said that they didn't need it. Not only that they are most likely paranoid. Dont get butthurt and start claiming I said something you cant quote me as saying.

Define arsenal. I've got a dozen weapons. Each has it's own purpose. They are tools. You use the right tool for the right job. Some times you have backs up tool. None of my guns are owned out of fear. I live in the woods, I hunt.

My Dad has a couple dozen guns and rifles. Some are just collected stuff..

According to the paranoid idiots in this thread you are going to kill a bunch of people because you own more guns than you need.

 

[RKMBrown]

According to the paranoid idiots in this thread you are going to kill a bunch of people because you own more guns than you need.

I can see how some folks get scared when they see weapons... esp. when weapons were not common at their home as their were growing up.

It's natural.

But... fear is the mind killer... better to get over your fears than let fear rule.

 

[Asclepias]

Any parent in your neighborhood could snap and kill their kids or yours so why not dent them the right to procreate?

And let's not get into the who needs what argument because I can come up with a list a mile long of shit people don't need.

If the guy never breaks the law what is your issue with him?

Mind your own business.

Bullshit and ad hominem..

Parents werent created for the purpose of killing their children.

I can come up with a list of things people dont need but again most or all of them were not created with the purpose of being able to kill another human.

I just told what my issue was. I dont think he should have that much firepower unless he is in the military and even the military doesnt allow a solider access to that much fire power on a whim. Using a license is not that same. People can and do get their licenses taken if they are a threat to the public.

I am minding my business.

So now it's the purpose?

Anyone can commit a crime at any time according to you right?

Just because a guy has a gun collection does not mean he is more prone to committing any crime than anyone else.

You cannot justify restricting a person's rights because you are afraid.

If he has done nothing wrong then what he does in none of your business. Period.

Yes we can justify restricting your rights due to fear. Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or sawed off shotgun.

I never said a person with a gun collection is more prone to committing crime. Stop deflecting.

That's exactly what you're saying.

If a guy owns too many guns in your opinion you think he's going to kill everyone in your neighborhood.

It seems you not the gun owner are the paranoid one.

No its not what I am saying. Where do you see that? The question was asked what was my issue (opinion) with people that owned a arsenal. I said that they didn't need it. Not only that they are most likely paranoid. Dont get butthurt and start claiming I said something you cant quote me as saying.

Define arsenal. I've got a dozen weapons. Each has it's own purpose. They are tools. You use the right tool for the right job. Some times you have back up tools. None of my guns are owned out of fear. I live in the woods, I hunt.

My Dad has a couple dozen guns and rifles. Some are just collected stuff..

I was thinking more of the nutcases preparing for Armageddon. People who hunt to feed themselves and vintage gun collectors dont fall into my definition of arsenal.

 

[Asclepias]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

So you see you said you think a guy who you think owns too many guns will blow up your whole neighborhood.

I didn't make it up. You said it.

Where id I say the word "think". Stop lying and making up things. I said it was possible. That doesnt mean I think every person with a lot of guns is going to do it. The problem is if the decison is made then he is more capable than a person that has only one gun.

 

[RKMBrown]

So now it's the purpose?

Anyone can commit a crime at any time according to you right?

Just because a guy has a gun collection does not mean he is more prone to committing any crime than anyone else.

You cannot justify restricting a person's rights because you are afraid.

If he has done nothing wrong then what he does in none of your business. Period.

Yes we can justify restricting your rights due to fear. Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or sawed off shotgun.

I never said a person with a gun collection is more prone to committing crime. Stop deflecting.

That's exactly what you're saying.

If a guy owns too many guns in your opinion you think he's going to kill everyone in your neighborhood.

It seems you not the gun owner are the paranoid one.

No its not what I am saying. Where do you see that? The question was asked what was my issue (opinion) with people that owned a arsenal. I said that they didn't need it. Not only that they are most likely paranoid. Dont get butthurt and start claiming I said something you cant quote me as saying.

Define arsenal. I've got a dozen weapons. Each has it's own purpose. They are tools. You use the right tool for the right job. Some times you have back up tools. None of my guns are owned out of fear. I live in the woods, I hunt.

My Dad has a couple dozen guns and rifles. Some are just collected stuff..

I was thinking more of the nutcases preparing for Armageddon. People who hunt to feed themselves and vintage gun collectors dont fall into my definition of arsenal.

Prepping... it's fun to talk about... and if I had a bucket of cash to blow I would not mind getting me a storm shelter for tornadoes and stuffing it for the end of days scenario. In all honesty living where I do, I probably do need to do some of that. For example, it would be a good idea to have a diesel tank and off grid power backup. One never knows if / when we loose our power grid for an extended period of time. Having studied our grid... we've just been lucky so far. Nuclear war.. well it is a possibility and that possibility has not been reduced by the north Koreans and Pakistani's getting them..

 

[Asclepias]

Yes we can justify restricting your rights due to fear. Thats why you cant own a nuclear warhead or sawed off shotgun.

I never said a person with a gun collection is more prone to committing crime. Stop deflecting.

That's exactly what you're saying.

If a guy owns too many guns in your opinion you think he's going to kill everyone in your neighborhood.

It seems you not the gun owner are the paranoid one.

No its not what I am saying. Where do you see that? The question was asked what was my issue (opinion) with people that owned a arsenal. I said that they didn't need it. Not only that they are most likely paranoid. Dont get butthurt and start claiming I said something you cant quote me as saying.

Define arsenal. I've got a dozen weapons. Each has it's own purpose. They are tools. You use the right tool for the right job. Some times you have back up tools. None of my guns are owned out of fear. I live in the woods, I hunt.

My Dad has a couple dozen guns and rifles. Some are just collected stuff..

I was thinking more of the nutcases preparing for Armageddon. People who hunt to feed themselves and vintage gun collectors dont fall into my definition of arsenal.

Prepping... it's fun to talk about... and if I had a bucket of cash to blow I would not mind getting me a storm shelter for tornadoes and stuffing it for the end of days scenario. In all honesty living where I do, I probably do need to do some of that. For example, it would be a good idea to have a diesel tank and off grid power backup. One never knows if / when we loose our power grid for an extended period of time. Having studied our grid... we've just been lucky so far. Nuclear war.. well it is a possibility and that possibility has not been reduced by the north Koreans and Pakistani's getting them..

That makes sense with food. Having more weapons than you can possibly shoot for a doomsday scenario is in my opinion taking up space you could have for things that are life sustaining like water or medical supplies.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's exactly what you're saying.

If a guy owns too many guns in your opinion you think he's going to kill everyone in your neighborhood.

It seems you not the gun owner are the paranoid one.

No its not what I am saying. Where do you see that? The question was asked what was my issue (opinion) with people that owned a arsenal. I said that they didn't need it. Not only that they are most likely paranoid. Dont get butthurt and start claiming I said something you cant quote me as saying.

Define arsenal. I've got a dozen weapons. Each has it's own purpose. They are tools. You use the right tool for the right job. Some times you have back up tools. None of my guns are owned out of fear. I live in the woods, I hunt.

My Dad has a couple dozen guns and rifles. Some are just collected stuff..

I was thinking more of the nutcases preparing for Armageddon. People who hunt to feed themselves and vintage gun collectors dont fall into my definition of arsenal.

Prepping... it's fun to talk about... and if I had a bucket of cash to blow I would not mind getting me a storm shelter for tornadoes and stuffing it for the end of days scenario. In all honesty living where I do, I probably do need to do some of that. For example, it would be a good idea to have a diesel tank and off grid power backup. One never knows if / when we loose our power grid for an extended period of time. Having studied our grid... we've just been lucky so far. Nuclear war.. well it is a possibility and that possibility has not been reduced by the north Koreans and Pakistani's getting them..

That makes sense with food. Having more weapons than you can possibly shoot for a doomsday scenario is in my opinion taking up space you could have for things that are life sustaining like water or medical supplies.

If there is a end of days scenario. Folks in the city might rove around... folks in the country like me might group up for defense. I have 5 family members, essentially my own fire team. Let's say a few neighbors want to join my militia. Hell I'm gonna need at least 25 rifles to form a decent sized platoon

 

[Asclepias]

No its not what I am saying. Where do you see that? The question was asked what was my issue (opinion) with people that owned a arsenal. I said that they didn't need it. Not only that they are most likely paranoid. Dont get butthurt and start claiming I said something you cant quote me as saying.

Define arsenal. I've got a dozen weapons. Each has it's own purpose. They are tools. You use the right tool for the right job. Some times you have back up tools. None of my guns are owned out of fear. I live in the woods, I hunt.

My Dad has a couple dozen guns and rifles. Some are just collected stuff..

I was thinking more of the nutcases preparing for Armageddon. People who hunt to feed themselves and vintage gun collectors dont fall into my definition of arsenal.

Prepping... it's fun to talk about... and if I had a bucket of cash to blow I would not mind getting me a storm shelter for tornadoes and stuffing it for the end of days scenario. In all honesty living where I do, I probably do need to do some of that. For example, it would be a good idea to have a diesel tank and off grid power backup. One never knows if / when we loose our power grid for an extended period of time. Having studied our grid... we've just been lucky so far. Nuclear war.. well it is a possibility and that possibility has not been reduced by the north Koreans and Pakistani's getting them..

That makes sense with food. Having more weapons than you can possibly shoot for a doomsday scenario is in my opinion taking up space you could have for things that are life sustaining like water or medical supplies.

If there is a end of days scenario. Folks in the city might rove around... folks in the country like me might group up for defense. I have 5 family members, essentially my own fire team. Let's say a few neighbors want to join my militia. Hell I'm gonna need at least 25 rifles to form a decent sized platoon

In your case that would make sense assuming you are the only one that owns weapons.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you have a link to this? I may learn something here.

That is subject to debate;

{ The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. }

The Federalist 46

There is no question this means man-portable small arms.

 

[RKMBrown]

Define arsenal. I've got a dozen weapons. Each has it's own purpose. They are tools. You use the right tool for the right job. Some times you have back up tools. None of my guns are owned out of fear. I live in the woods, I hunt.

My Dad has a couple dozen guns and rifles. Some are just collected stuff..

I was thinking more of the nutcases preparing for Armageddon. People who hunt to feed themselves and vintage gun collectors dont fall into my definition of arsenal.

Prepping... it's fun to talk about... and if I had a bucket of cash to blow I would not mind getting me a storm shelter for tornadoes and stuffing it for the end of days scenario. In all honesty living where I do, I probably do need to do some of that. For example, it would be a good idea to have a diesel tank and off grid power backup. One never knows if / when we loose our power grid for an extended period of time. Having studied our grid... we've just been lucky so far. Nuclear war.. well it is a possibility and that possibility has not been reduced by the north Koreans and Pakistani's getting them..

That makes sense with food. Having more weapons than you can possibly shoot for a doomsday scenario is in my opinion taking up space you could have for things that are life sustaining like water or medical supplies.

If there is a end of days scenario. Folks in the city might rove around... folks in the country like me might group up for defense. I have 5 family members, essentially my own fire team. Let's say a few neighbors want to join my militia. Hell I'm gonna need at least 25 rifles to form a decent sized platoon

In your case that would make sense assuming you are the only one that owns weapons.

I think that's what happens.. the folks start out small then see new toys and buy a bunch more. Next thing you know... ya have a whole arsenal. Then someone puts a video camera on it while playing spooky or crazy music and announces that this guy has more than anyone needs.

 

[Asclepias]

Do you have a link to this? I may learn something here.

That is subject to debate;

{ The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. }

The Federalist 46

There is no question this means man-portable small arms.

There is a question. A sawed off shotgun is man portable. Why are they restricted?

 

[Asclepias]

I was thinking more of the nutcases preparing for Armageddon. People who hunt to feed themselves and vintage gun collectors dont fall into my definition of arsenal.

Prepping... it's fun to talk about... and if I had a bucket of cash to blow I would not mind getting me a storm shelter for tornadoes and stuffing it for the end of days scenario. In all honesty living where I do, I probably do need to do some of that. For example, it would be a good idea to have a diesel tank and off grid power backup. One never knows if / when we loose our power grid for an extended period of time. Having studied our grid... we've just been lucky so far. Nuclear war.. well it is a possibility and that possibility has not been reduced by the north Koreans and Pakistani's getting them..

That makes sense with food. Having more weapons than you can possibly shoot for a doomsday scenario is in my opinion taking up space you could have for things that are life sustaining like water or medical supplies.

If there is a end of days scenario. Folks in the city might rove around... folks in the country like me might group up for defense. I have 5 family members, essentially my own fire team. Let's say a few neighbors want to join my militia. Hell I'm gonna need at least 25 rifles to form a decent sized platoon

In your case that would make sense assuming you are the only one that owns weapons.

I think that's what happens.. the folks start out small then see new toys and buy a bunch more. Next thing you know... ya have a whole arsenal. Then someone puts a video camera on it while playing spooky or crazy music and announces that this guy has more than anyone needs.

I have no problem with people having more than they need. My personal opinion is just that its overkill born out of fear. You can have an arsenal but if I walk into your man cave with my 12 gauge and send you on your way, that arsenal didnt really do you much good as you can only shoot one at a time with any degree of accuracy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is a question. A sawed off shotgun is man portable. Why are they restricted?

The answer is that it shouldn't be - activist judges made a ruling based on politics rather than the Constitution.

 

[Asclepias]

There is a question. A sawed off shotgun is man portable. Why are they restricted?

The answer is that it shouldn't be - activist judges made a ruling based on politics rather than the Constitution.

So all this stuff about laws and the constitution is just BS then? Like I said, common sense laws is a myth as it is subject to someones interpretation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have no problem with people having more than they need. My personal opinion is just that its overkill born out of fear. You can have an arsenal but if I walk into your man cave with my 12 gauge and send you on your way, that arsenal didnt really do you much good as you can only shoot one at a time with any degree of accuracy.

The problem is that if they are back 100 yards, your 12 gauge will be worthless.

 

[The Rabbi]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

How do you enforce the storage law?

Random searches?

IMO the only law needed is life in prison without parole for any crime committed with a firearm. And negligence on the owner's part is a crime.

i have stated before at least 25 years and you serve every minute and depending on how much damage was done you get time added on....of course paranoid Zeke and others like him will probably say im advocating gun violence... ....

This is one of my biggest points. If you commit a violent crime with a firearm, you go to prison. PERIOD. No time off for good behavior. No parole. If you are worried about prison overcrowding, let the people who were convicted of drug offenses (nonviolent offenders) out of prison. They shouldn't have been there to begin with.

And if you commit premeditated murder, you never get out of prison. Take the violent offenders off the streets and keep them off.

Wasn't this supposed to be "common sense" gun law. LMAO.

Most of the violent crimes will be done by men under the age of 30.

Rather than try and deny men under thirty the easy ability to obtain a firearm to commit an armed crime, you all would rather, when they get caught and I presume tried and convicted, throw them in jail either forever or just short of forever.

That is so fucking stupid that I had to laugh my ass off. And you guys are serious and think you are doing men under the age 30 a FAVOR.

Unbelievable.

I never said that men under 30 shouldn't have access to ANY guns. Shooting at a range, with responsible people over 30, etc etc.

I said not let them buy them from legal reputable sources.

Ya'll got no common sense to me. There is ALREADY an age restriction on gun purchases.

Any one want to bet that most of the kids who find a gun at home and kill or injure with that gun, that gun was bought and taken home by a man under 30. Any one want that bet? You think accidental child deaths by gun might come down. You all for that?

Common fucking sense says that if you know WHO commits the majority of violent crimes and the age range in which that group exists, you at least make it much harder for that group to buy guns.

What is the big deal.

If a young woman should happen to have a relationship with a jealous hothead and she breaks up with this dude, why should this young woman have to worry that her jealous now ex can very easily buy all the guns he wants to kill her and whoever? Men under 30 commit most of those crimes.

Ask any cop you can find how they would feel if it wasn't so easy for men under 30 to buy guns. See if they'd be heartbroken like you all are.

Its Zeke with an idiotic idea.
Hey, Zeke, where are 29 year olds treated like chidlren? Yeah, nowhere.
And do you really think criminals wont buy guns or the only venue is the local gun shop?
You're so stupid I just cringe.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So all this stuff about laws and the constitution is just BS then? Like I said, common sense laws is a myth as it is subject to someones interpretation.

Words have meanings. the words of the Constitution have meanings.

The 1930's were a time of upheaval, and the courts demonstrated this. The Valentines Day Massacre used two basic weapons, sawed off shot guns, and Thompson .45 automatic rifles. An activist Congress reacted to media stories and outlawed these with the National Firearms Act of 1934. While the act is clearly unconstitutional, the courts held politics above the law. The Miller decision is on par with Dred Scott, Plessy, and Roe in it's blatant disregard for law and precedence. The court sought an outcome and pissed on the Constitution in seeking that outcome.