In the words of Rand Paul “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so”

You'll make any stretch anymore, so long as it can be used to go against guns. :lol:

So would you support the government if they declared Martial Law and decided that only military and law enforcement could possess guns? Thus coming and confiscating everyone's firearms?

I'm going with "yes" for her on that.

It's a shame that people believe everything they see in the news or go along with everything the government tells them. Just like the idea of free healthcare. When facts are put out that $3200 deductibles aren't really insurance at all....crickets.

Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?

How evil to make a profit off of a product!

Commonsense steps? Perhaps if we had some commonsense steps instead of knee-jerk reactions, misrepresentation, lies, scare tactics and ignorance we might actually be able to prevent the carnage.

 

 

Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, their workplaces and their businesses?

Seriously? Empower the very same people we empowered to run up record debt to protect us? Experience, based on their sense of right and wrong? Seriously? :lol: That's rich!

 

 

 

This legislation is my life’s goal. As long as I am a member of the Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our streets.

Well there you have it. It's her legacy. Something she feels she can hang her hat on. Doesn't matter that it will stop nothing, prevent nothing, help no one. It's about making her feel good about herself. Way to step up to the plate....and push your meaningless agenda....

Again with the assault weapons. Repeat a lie enough until the masses believe it. Thank God for those elected representatives that vote their conscience based on their experience and their sense of right and wrong! Shameless.

 

 

Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.

Good thing for some she wasn't around in the time of Lincoln....well, she may have been, hard to tell at a glance anyway. So...now she speaks for the founding fathers. Amazing.

 

 

So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay involved. The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If the American people rise up and demand action from their elected officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say ‘‘no’’ to military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.

YES! Please get involved. Tell our elected officials HELL NO! We will not stand for our rights to be taken from us by lying, overbearing, oppressive politicians that want to push an agenda of theirs while trampling on the graves of children to gain public opinion on a legislative failure from the onset.

Once again with the assault weapons. Sell it hard, Dianne! No assault weapon has been used in ANY of these killings they've been talking about. NOT ONE!

If only California would rid us of the scourge known as Dianne Feinstein by voting her out. *sigh*

How evil to make a profit off of a product!

Commonsense steps? Perhaps if we had some commonsense steps instead of knee-jerk reactions, misrepresentation, lies, scare tactics and ignorance we might actually be able to prevent the carnage.

 

Seriously? Empower the very same people we empowered to run up record debt to protect us? Experience, based on their sense of right and wrong? Seriously? :lol: That's rich!

 

Well there you have it. It's her legacy. Something she feels she can hang her hat on. Doesn't matter that it will stop nothing, prevent nothing, help no one. It's about making her feel good about herself. Way to step up to the plate....and push your meaningless agenda....

Again with the assault weapons. Repeat a lie enough until the masses believe it. Thank God for those elected representatives that vote their conscience based on their experience and their sense of right and wrong! Shameless.

 

Good thing for some she wasn't around in the time of Lincoln....well, she may have been, hard to tell at a glance anyway. So...now she speaks for the founding fathers. Amazing.

 

YES! Please get involved. Tell our elected officials HELL NO! We will not stand for our rights to be taken from us by lying, overbearing, oppressive politicians that want to push an agenda of theirs while trampling on the graves of children to gain public opinion on a legislative failure from the onset.

Once again with the assault weapons. Sell it hard, Dianne! No assault weapon has been used in ANY of these killings they've been talking about. NOT ONE!

If only California would rid us of the scourge known as Dianne Feinstein by voting her out. *sigh*

 

Bravo!!!!

You'll make any stretch anymore' date=' so long as it can be used to go against guns. :lol:[/quote']

 

Those are his words not mine. And I am not against guns. I am for reasonable restrictions and tougher laws.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

Those are his words not mine. And I am not against guns. I am for reasonable restrictions and tougher laws.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

If you were selected Gun Czar Monday, what would be your reasonable restrictions and tougher laws? (To your surprise I may agree with you more than you think) So what would Gun Czar Rockmom propose?

If you were selected Gun Czar Monday, what would be your reasonable restrictions and tougher laws? (To your surprise I may agree with you more than you think) So what would Gun Czar Rockmom propose?

 

Strict background checks and proof of mental health (paid for by the potential gun owner)

Proof of safety training provided within 30 days of purchase of a fire arm, and annual proof of "recertification". And that applies for each type of gun you may have (ie hand gun training, vs. rifle training vs. shotgun training for instance)

Automatic charges triggered when an "accidental" shooting occurs. At a minimum, I'd like to see criminal negligence charges.

I favor gun-free zones where children are educated

I favor restriction of firearms in places where children are entertained (zoo, library, parks, etc.)

 

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

 

I really don't have an opinion on the ammo issue. I don't personally see why one would need a big magazine, but I'm don't really care if they own it, if they pass the

I could go for registration, but feel that with the above in place, it isn't really as necessary

Strict background checks and proof of mental health (paid for by the potential gun owner)

Proof of safety training provided within 30 days of purchase of a fire arm, and annual proof of "recertification". And that applies for each type of gun you may have (ie hand gun training, vs. rifle training vs. shotgun training for instance)

Automatic charges triggered when an "accidental" shooting occurs. At a minimum, I'd like to see criminal negligence charges.

I favor gun-free zones where children are educated

I favor restriction of firearms in places where children are entertained (zoo, library, parks, etc.)

 

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

 

I really don't have an opinion on the ammo issue. I don't personally see why one would need a big magazine, but I'm don't really care if they own it, if they pass the

I could go for registration, but feel that with the above in place, it isn't really as necessary

 

I agree 100% with first point. I would also add a domestic violence data base that can be accessed in real time. Example: If an EPO or DVO is placed on someone it should be automatically entered into a data base that would shut down sales immediately for those involved. Domestic violence is still the leading cause of firearms death between victims and offenders that know each other.

 

I have no problem with safety training but yearly would be unwieldy and too often, how about every five years (the length of a CCDW permit).

 

I have not problem with criminal negligence charges, if warranted. Each case would have to stand on it's own merit. A 14yo playing with a gun and shooting someone is much different from a 14yo hunter stumbling and the gun going off...look at on a case by case basis.

 

I understand the premise of gun free zones, but to date that has never been a deterrent to crime, only a deterrent to stopping crime. So I respectfully disagree.

 

All in all I could live what you would put in place, live with it easier with my suggested changes.

I agree 100% with first point. I would also add a domestic violence data base that can be accessed in real time. Example: If an EPO or DVO is placed on someone it should be automatically entered into a data base that would shut down sales immediately for those involved. Domestic violence is still the leading cause of firearms death between victims and offenders that know each other.

 

I have no problem with safety training but yearly would be unwieldy and too often, how about every five years (the length of a CCDW permit).

 

I have not problem with criminal negligence charges, if warranted. Each case would have to stand on it's own merit. A 14yo playing with a gun and shooting someone is much different from a 14yo hunter stumbling and the gun going off...look at on a case by case basis.

 

I understand the premise of gun free zones, but to date that has never been a deterrent to crime, only a deterrent to stopping crime. So I respectfully disagree.

 

All in all I could live what you would put in place, live with it easier with my suggested changes.

 

I agree with the domestic violence data base access.

I could live with every 5 years

I can agree that it proabably should be a case by case basis

I'm still strong on the gun free zones.

I agree with the domestic violence data base access.

I could live with every 5 years

I can agree that it proabably should be a case by case basis

I'm still strong on the gun free zones.

See, I told you we were closer than you thought we would be.

 

GFZ still don't work

See, I told you we were closer than you thought we would be.

 

GFZ still don't work

 

:lol:

 

I wish more of your gun-totin' compadres were as reasonable as you.

 

GFZ for life! :lol:

Strict background checks and proof of mental health (paid for by the potential gun owner)

Proof of safety training provided within 30 days of purchase of a fire arm, and annual proof of "recertification". And that applies for each type of gun you may have (ie hand gun training, vs. rifle training vs. shotgun training for instance)

Automatic charges triggered when an "accidental" shooting occurs. At a minimum, I'd like to see criminal negligence charges.

I favor gun-free zones where children are educated

I favor restriction of firearms in places where children are entertained (zoo, library, parks, etc.)

 

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

 

I really don't have an opinion on the ammo issue. I don't personally see why one would need a big magazine, but I'm don't really care if they own it, if they pass the

I could go for registration, but feel that with the above in place, it isn't really as necessary

You left out a few things, like the assault weapon ban and round restrictions (I know you touched on rounds, but it's part of what you originally said was fine to limit). I have to assume you are for them since you said in another post the proposed restrictions are a good start.

Now, I have some questions if you don't mind. Of everything you just posted. How is that going to stop criminals and how does it prevent the next gun free zone from getting shot up? Some of what you posted is reasonable, but I only see the vast majority of it affecting the law abiding.

What about psychotropic drugs? I mean, they're way over-prescribed. Why not get tough on them? How do we keep mentally ill people from getting guns even with everything you propose?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think the focus is in the wrong area. But that's certainly not any fault of yours, this administration is pushing the lies and their agenda really hard and the media is doing what it can to help them.

Honestly, if we just enforce the laws already in place, it would cover just about everything you posted.

I agree with BIG BLACK JACK, go after the nuts, not the guns.

You left out a few things, like the assault weapon ban and round restrictions (I know you touched on rounds, but it's part of what you originally said was fine to limit). I have to assume you are for them since you said in another post the proposed restrictions are a good start.

Now, I have some questions if you don't mind. Of everything you just posted. How is that going to stop criminals and how does it prevent the next gun free zone from getting shot up? Some of what you posted is reasonable, but I only see the vast majority of it affecting the law abiding.

What about psychotropic drugs? I mean, they're way over-prescribed. Why not get tough on them? How do we keep mentally ill people from getting guns even with everything you propose?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think the focus is in the wrong area. But that's certainly not any fault of yours, this administration is pushing the lies and their agenda really hard and the media is doing what it can to help them.

Honestly, if we just enforce the laws already in place, it would cover just about everything you posted.

I agree with BIG BLACK JACK, go after the nuts, not the guns.

 

I love how everyone either don't read my posts fully, or must be assuming things about my position despite my posts.

 

I said that as a whole I could live with it. I've said what I feel should be the most important restrictions/reforms. Are there more things I would prefer in an ideal world? Yes.

 

I feel the mental health funding issue should be addressed. But that's nit the end of the issue for me.

 

And, as I said before, everyone wants to focus on mass shootings. But my focus is on the people who die everyday, especially children, as a result of irresponsible LEGAL gun ownership.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

In the words of Rand Paul “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so”

 

So would you support the government if they declared Martial Law and decided that only military and law enforcement could possess guns? Thus coming and confiscating everyone's firearms?

 

Still waiting...