How do the homicide rates in those countries compare with the U.S.? Just curious...

I don't know, but I do know burglary went up. Honestly, I don't care, like I said, enforce the laws we already have.

See England now and Nazi Germany then.

If you guys want to discuss how this stuff works in England, Australia, Japan and other countries, go right ahead. But don't go throwing "Nazi Germany" out there ... this ain't Nazi Germany.

If you guys want to discuss how this stuff works in England, Australia, Japan and other countries, go right ahead. But don't go throwing "Nazi Germany" out there ... this ain't Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany was not Nazi Germany either when the first gun control laws were enacted there. Gun control in Germany dates back to 1928, at which time the Law on Firearms and Ammunition was enacted by the Weimar Republic.

This is part of the Idaho State Constitution, it should be part of every state's Constitution.

 

No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.[/Quote]

Almost every person that has been appointed in the last thirty days to any Govt. position has had prior dealings with anti gun laws. You had to know it was coming !! Wonder why the Government did not publish the latest findings concerning states with concealed carry compared to states without it ?? Was it because states WITH concealed carry watched their crime and murder rates decline , while the others had an increase ?............ That is exactly why ! You would think they would have twisted it somehow, Thats what they usually do !!

 

On another note , I am sure you have all heard about all the "illegal gun show sales". If that has in fact happened, someone has broken the law. An individual cannot purchase a firearm either in state or out of state without doing the paper work AND having a background check run first. If the show is out of state a person may not take posession of the purchase , it must be delivered to the state of residense to a FFL holder for transfer from and to the seller and buyer. I LIKE GUNS:thumb::thumb:

The bill sounds perfectly logical and reasonable to me.

 

To someone who hates the 2nd amendment.

What's unconstitutional? There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have the right to own a gun with no policies, procedures, laws, or regulation. It just says that you have the right to bear arms.

 

By using backdoors methods to disarm Americans, it is no different than outright confiscation of our guns.

I'm not blind, and your comments are too generalized to define what people who support gun control really feel.

 

I don't hate guns. But, I do hate the misuse of guns, whether that be by a legal or illegal gun owner.

 

My philosophy is simple. The purpose of a weapon is to maim and/or kill. Guns are dangerous objects and if one wishes to own one, then one should be prepared to accept the consequences of misuse. I'm tired of reading newspaper accounts of innocents killed by improper storage or use of guns. I'm tired of hearing that the only way to protect oneself is by owning a gun. I'm tired of being told that I'm naive because I feel that as with any right, comes responsibility and limits. There are limits and responsibilities and dangers attached to all our rights. Requiring one to provide fingerprints and ID's is not only reasonable, but is responsible control for a device specifically manufactured to wound/kill.

 

Passing this bill that Rush wants does nothing about safe storage of guns. It is all about eventual confiscation of guns. They want the population unarmed for easier thought control (political correctness).

If you guys want to discuss how this stuff works in England, Australia, Japan and other countries, go right ahead. But don't go throwing "Nazi Germany" out there ... this ain't Nazi Germany.

 

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it..............

To someone who hates the 2nd amendment.

 

 

That is not a fair characterization of RM on this matter. She favors more control than many of us, but she does not hate the 2nd Amendment. You are using polarizing language that does nothing for this discussion.

Passing this bill that Rush wants does nothing about safe storage of guns. It is all about eventual confiscation of guns. They want the population unarmed for easier thought control (political correctness).

 

 

I am continually amazed at the leap from increased measures regulating gun ownership to outright confiscation.

 

Do you feel as violated when you now see the 0 Trans Fat label on all your favorite snack foods?

 

Granted, there's no constitutional right to eat bad things.

 

What about when the FCC requires the bleeping out of offensive language? We do have the right to free speech.

Passing this bill that Rush wants does nothing about safe storage of guns. It is all about eventual confiscation of guns. They want the population unarmed for easier thought control (political correctness).

 

 

I'm quoting your post as an example of what I feel is a real paranoia prevelant among a somewhat significant sector of our society.

 

To me, one of the most glaring indications is the use of the pronoun "they". It's as if there's an "us against them" mentality.

 

As to the comment about thought control/political correctness, do you really feel that people who are for supportive of increased gun control measures are sheep being led to slaughter? If we are, then I sincerely hope I don't have to count on the NRA members of this country to save me. There is no collective concern for the collective right to bear arms in case the government runs roughshod over our collective rights.

 

In post after post after post over the last year or so, there's a concern for the "me" in the post. There's no concern about protecting one's neighbor, only one's own property.

 

There are far many more fragile and subjective rights that are controlled. And the unarmed citizens of the country have the right to feel that they can leave their child in the care of an adult gun owner, and that that child will be alive and unharmed when they come to pick him/her up. There is the right of the unarmed citizenry to drive down the road and know that should an irate driver be upset at their driving, he doesn't pull out a gun and shoot them at the next stop sign.

 

There is a duty to protect citizens from irresponsible citizens. I don't care if people have guns. I don't think guns are bad. I grew up around guns, I can shoot a gun, and I'm good at it. I don't own a gun by my own choice. I have no need for one. If a person wants to own a gun, more power to them. But, where am I wrong in believing that increased measures to ensure that mentally unstable people & people who may forge documentation, should be restricted? Submitting finger prints and photo ID's would help eliminate forged documentation. A national database is wise, especially in this day and age, where domestic hate group participation is growing. I favor increased penalties for careless ownership of guns.

 

We live in a paranoid age.

That is not a fair characterization of RM on this matter. She favors more control than many of us, but she does not hate the 2nd Amendment. You are using polarizing language that does nothing for this discussion.

 

Thans, PR! :thumb:

I haven't owned a gun and I doubt that I ever will. However, I just don't understand the point of a bill like this.

 

What is the purpose of gun control? From what I gather, it is to keep guns out of the hands of those who are unsafe with it. However, don't we already have a process for "vetting" those looking to buy guns? Likewise, I agree with PepRock- a mental health check and stuff of that sort is fine (although enough is enough). I also favor stronger punishments for misuse or misstorage of guns. But having a federal database of gun owners is worthless, intrusive, and can only lead to bad, bad things.

I grew up around guns, I can shoot a gun, and I'm good at it.

 

Ten bucks says this argument ends now I'm running