Actually lost in these six pages is a GOOD reason from anyone why this bill makes sense.

 

Again I will ask someone to not just say they support the bill or think it's logical but why you think it makes sense and why it is a good idea. Please someone give a reason.

 

You just missed them is all.

 

"Seems reasonable"

"Seems logical"

"Couldn't hurt"

"Might help deter crime"

"Don't want criminals to have guns"

 

Still to be decided:

 

How this new law helps reduce/deter crime.

How this new law will keep guns out of criminals' hands.

Why the Brady background checks are not sufficient.

I understand the problems some on here have with the bill, particularly the disclosure of mental health history and the restrictions on selling guns.

 

I don't have a problem with registration for guns and the requirements to report losses or thefts promptly and the provisions regarding change of address. We have to do those things in other aspects of our lives, particularly with automobiles.

 

Unfortunately, some want those provisions because they think they can prevent some of the tragedies that have happened in the past, and I can wholeheartedly understand it.

 

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need such regulation. In the real world, sometimes we do.

The bill sounds reasonable to me, too.

 

If we want to talk about itchy trigger fingers, let's talk about the decision to go to Iraq.

 

I can't help but be curious, Westsider. So far in this thread you've spent a great deal of time talking about Iraq, Obama, Liberal vs. Conservative theologies, and the Supreme Court. This is the only post that I could find in which you actually state an opinion on the proposed new law, which you think "sounds reasonable." While I disagree with Rockmom, I certainly give her credit for attempting to defend her position. I can't help but ask if you would mind sharing why you also feel the bill is reasonable.

I can't help but be curious, Westsider. So far in this thread you've spent a great deal of time talking about Iraq, Obama, Liberal vs. Conservative theologies, and the Supreme Court. This is the only post that I could find in which you actually state an opinion on the proposed new law, which you think "sounds reasonable." While I disagree with Rockmom, I certainly give her credit for attempting to defend her position. I can't help but ask if you would mind sharing why you also feel the bill is reasonable.

Iraq ... one flippant mention is hardly "a great deal of time."

 

As for the other topics, those come up as responses to others' posts ... that is allowed here, last I checked.

 

And you can check the post before yours for more on my position.

Iraq ... one flippant mention is hardly "a great deal of time."

 

As for the other topics, those come up as responses to others' posts ... that is allowed here, last I checked.

 

Not meaning to imply you spent a "great deal of time" specifically on Iraq. That was just one of several other topics that I lumped together. Nor am I saying you don't have the right to or shouldn't have replied to those other posts.

 

You've spent a fair amount of time in this thread and were one of only a few people that seemed to support the bill. I was legitimately asking for your reasons why.

While I disagree with Rockmom, I certainly give her credit for attempting to defend her position. I can't help but ask if you would mind sharing why you also feel the bill is reasonable.

 

You've spent a fair amount of time in this thread and were one of only a few people that seemed to support the bill. I was legitimately asking for your reasons why.

 

...

I think someone pointed this out in an earlier post , but please tell me the answer to this. Even if the bill passed there are about 300 million guns made prior to 1968 with no way to trace them. Do you think the people that have them will register them ? Will the bad guys in posession of any of them turn them in ? I think you will see that won't happen ! Our new President was not born and raised in this country and I do not think he fully understands the heritage, history, or importance of firearms to people in this country.:thumb:

I think someone pointed this out in an earlier post , but please tell me the answer to this. Even if the bill passed there are about 300 million guns made prior to 1968 with no way to trace them. Do you think the people that have them will register them ? Will the bad guys in posession of any of them turn them in ? I think you will see that won't happen ! Our new President was not born and raised in this country and I do not think he fully understands the heritage, history, or importance of firearms to people in this country.:thumb:

 

 

:lol: :lol:

 

You raised some very good questions...and I was prepared to consider them, but then....

 

:lol:

I don't like guns. I don't like that my "Jerry Springer guest" like neighbors in the apartment might have them, I don't like that the guy riding my tail on the highway may have one, I don't even really like the thought that you (yeah you) have one.

 

I don't see where I would feel comfortable with the aftermath of killing someone with a weapon. I don't really see the need that I should one.

 

I concern myself with how guns are a hobby culture. And in nearly every hobby culture that has element of danger to, the participants of the hobby like to test the boundaries of that danger, and in may cases to a lethal conclusion.

 

In my perfect world we don't have guns. I wouldn't mind the second amendment getting repealed, but I do respect that it is part of our constitution and I respect the argument that those have who defend it. In other words I don't like guns but I can agree with your arguement not to get rid of them.

 

However, I don't like this legislation proposal. I agree with those that question what this bill actually does for the good of the nation. I also question whether this should even be a topic of discussion as it is merely the assumption that this bill will be brought up again. I really just think this is the right trying to bring up the few fights they can still win, they are losing ground on nearly every other front. Obama has not made focus on these unwinnable ideological battlefronts, he's talking economy.

RowdyRedRam,

 

Who do you think should have guns? Should we disarm our military?

 

I am not being a smart aleck- I am actually curious to hear your answer. Who are the only people who should have guns?

I think someone pointed this out in an earlier post , but please tell me the answer to this. Even if the bill passed there are about 300 million guns made prior to 1968 with no way to trace them. Do you think the people that have them will register them ? Will the bad guys in posession of any of them turn them in ? I think you will see that won't happen ! Our new President was not born and raised in this country and I do not think he fully understands the heritage, history, or importance of firearms to people in this country.:thumb:

 

Hawaii is not part of the US? :lol:

Hawaii is not part of the US? :lol:

 

Well I guess you got me there ! He is not as old as some of us . I guess in 1959 he was not even a thought. So I will have to go with "he wasn't in an erra or area that would understand some of our heritage or history".How's that.:banana:

Obama's mother was bit of a hippie. I doubt that he ever knew the simple joy of opening a genuine Daisy Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas. :lol:

Well I guess you got me there ! He is not as old as some of us . I guess in 1959 he was not even a thought. So I will have to go with "he wasn't in an erra or area that would understand some of our heritage or history".How's that.:banana:

 

:lol: He's older than me. Also, let's remember that few of us really have the same heritage or history.

Well I guess you got me there ! He is not as old as some of us . I guess in 1959 he was not even a thought. So I will have to go with "he wasn't in an erra or area that would understand some of our heritage or history".How's that.:banana:

 

 

You're killing me. :lol: