I have to disagree. I don't fear immigrants any more, and really, not as much, as I do Americans. The day to day violent crime, even non-violent crime, is overwhelmingly committed by good old home grown Americans.

 

I guess it depends where you live. In border states I believe this isn't the case

So we expel Muslims who are American citizens and have done nothing wrong?

 

He kind of mouse trapped you there. You don't see the irony in some wanting to take guns away from law abiding citizens and your comment ?

How have democrats been good for gun business? Seems to me the left has tried to push for reform.

 

Jumper Dad posted an article on here a couple of months ago that said homicides are actually down from 20 years ago.

 

IMO it is harder to start a moral revolution than it would be to place more limitations on firearms.

 

If we're being honest this all goes back to the bipartisan thread I started. Neither side trusts each other. People don't want to give an inch because they know the end game of the other side.

 

Democrats don't want to cut spending because Republicans will always want more spending cuts. Republicans don't want a tax increase because they know it won't be to long until democrats need another one. The same can be applied for guns.

He kind of mouse trapped you there. You don't see the irony in some wanting to take guns away from law abiding citizens and your comment ?

 

I guess he got me, but in my defense I haven't read anybody on here saying we should take guns. I've seen people from the left asking for answers and those on the right in full defense mode.

I like that Maryland law as well.

 

I know you didn't say this but your talk of a fee brought up another thought. I've heard an idea on the left about taxing gu s and ammo at such a high rate or make license fee steep to price people out of buying.

 

My thought to that is why does the left only want the rich and powerful to be armed.

 

Good point, I'm not sure if those people are just fed up with DC not doing anything or what.

 

This is another reason why people stock up on ammo. I won't say the amount of ammo that I have, but my two word response to the amount of ammo found at the terrorists home "that's cute".

I guess he got me, but in my defense I haven't read anybody on here saying we should take guns. I've seen people from the left asking for answers and those on the right in full defense mode.

 

The only one on here is TTP. Much more on twitter.

I'm with you on the demise of what used to be a culture of respect in America. Unfortunately, Mayberry now has a meth problem and a bunch of hoodlums now live in Beaver Cleaver's old house. The '50s ain't coming back anytime soon.

 

Time to get some of these weapons out of circulation.

 

You finally touched on the problem then stepped in it again.

How have democrats been good for gun business? Seems to me the left has tried to push for reform.

 

Jumper Dad posted an article on here a couple of months ago that said homicides are actually down from 20 years ago.

 

IMO it is harder to start a moral revolution than it would be to place more limitations on firearms.

 

Every time a Democrat politician starts talking more gun regulations the general public stocks up on guns and ammo. It happened under Clinton and it happened under President Obama. The rhetoric that Dems use is anti-gun so folks figure they better get it while the gettin's good. In recent years gun sales went up and ammo flew off the shelves. You couldn't find 22 cal ammo anywhere, for instance.

 

As for fewer homicides now than 20 years ago, that number would still be a lot to me. I'm thinking 50 years ago before the terrible breakdown of the family and the development of the drug culture, etc. America used to be a kinder and gentler place, pardon me for borrowing a phrase from George H.W. Bush.

 

It may be harder to produce a "moral revolution" than slap on more restrictive laws against gun ownership but it would be a lot more effective and wouldn't whittle away at personal freedom.

 

BTW, I do not think "we" can produce it. It will require us doing more of that activity that certain politicians we're mocked for mentioning after this most recent terror attack. See the cartoon in other threads. :sssh:

Every time a Democrat politician starts talking more gun regulations the general public stocks up on guns and ammo. It happened under Clinton and it happened under President Obama. The rhetoric that Dems use is anti-gun so folks figure they better get it while the gettin's good. In recent years gun sales went up and ammo flew off the shelves. You couldn't find 22 cal ammo anywhere, for instance.

I can attest to this. I see it happen.

Thursday, California Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez, while appearing on MSNBC, actually said "we let the assault weapons ban, which was led by our senator Dianne Feinstein, we let that lapse. So you know, multiautomatic round weapons are easily available, even though not in California, but they can cross the state line, as you know”.

 

These people don't have a clue, yet they're the ones that think they're best fit to decide what should be banned and for what reason. We need politician control in this country.

In all for paying a small fee to do a check for a private sale. Myself and the other person should be required to go to an authorized dealer or whatever and have them assist in the transaction. I am not against getting rid of 100% private gun sales.

 

But that is only one of many things that we need to do. I like the laws in Maryland, if you commit any crime with a gun you automatically get 5 years in prison with no parole.

 

This will not take away rights from law abiding gun owners.

 

I like that but if it ever does become a reality nationwide there would soon be a reform movement saying the criminal is a victim because of mandatory sentences.

Thursday, California Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez, while appearing on MSNBC, actually said "we let the assault weapons ban, which was led by our senator Dianne Feinstein, we let that lapse. So you know, multiautomatic round weapons are easily available, even though not in California, but they can cross the state line, as you know”.

 

These people don't have a clue, yet they're the ones that think they're best fit to decide what should be banned and for what reason. We need politician control in this country.

What you're saying is that in order to have an opinion in this debate, one must be able to recite the lingo as well as a gun dealer and also be able to spout the technical differences between, say, an AK-47 and an AR-15.

 

I don't buy that. Rep. Sanchez is correct. We should ban from public use guns that go rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat. (How's that for technical know-how?) Ban all guns from public use that are capable of dispensing lead at a rate of X times per minute. That's all anyone needs to know.

Thursday, California Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez, while appearing on MSNBC, actually said "we let the assault weapons ban, which was led by our senator Dianne Feinstein, we let that lapse. So you know, multiautomatic round weapons are easily available, even though not in California, but they can cross the state line, as you know”.

 

These people don't have a clue, yet they're the ones that think they're best fit to decide what should be banned and for what reason. We need politician control in this country.

 

What's a multi automatic round weapon?

What you're saying is that in order to have an opinion in this debate, one must be able to recite the lingo as well as a gun dealer and also be able to spout the technical differences between, say, an AK-47 and an AR-15.

 

I don't buy that. Rep. Sanchez is correct. We should ban from public use guns that go rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat. (How's that for technical know-how?) Ban all guns from public use that are capable of dispensing lead at a rate of X times per minute. That's all anyone needs to know.

 

The idiots trying to take them away from us, the law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong, should at least know a little bit about them.

What you're saying is that in order to have an opinion in this debate, one must be able to recite the lingo as well as a gun dealer and also be able to spout the technical differences between, say, an AK-47 and an AR-15.

 

I don't buy that. Rep. Sanchez is correct. We should ban from public use guns that go rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat. (How's that for technical know-how?) Ban all guns from public use that are capable of dispensing lead at a rate of X times per minute. That's all anyone needs to know.

 

Yes. If you are a public official and you want to talk about banning any weapon you should, at the very least, know what you're talking about. You, much like the politician I just gave an example of, have no clue what you're speaking of. You just admitted that any and all semi automatic guns and rifles should be banned. You ARE the problem. She IS the problem. Maybe people such as yourself should be banned from voting? The country might very well be much better off.