It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: macman
Ever wonder why I have never included a list of guns I want banned? Its because I don't want ANY guns banned.
I just want to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible, the dangerous, and the crazy.
Stop assuming, you look like an ass.
originally posted by: HauntWok
It's a more stringent application process for those gun purchases.
It's for closing loopholes in the current gun laws, it's for harsher penalties for those that abuse their right to bear arms.
originally posted by: HauntWok
Ever wonder why I have never included a list of guns I want banned? Its because I don't want ANY guns banned.
They do have a solution. No, it's not a complete ban on guns. (I don't know why you all assume that I'm for a complete gun ban) It's a more stringent application process for those gun purchases.
originally posted by: HauntWok
I just want to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible, the dangerous, and the crazy.
originally posted by: HauntWok
Stop assuming, you look like an ass.
originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: thisguyrighthere
Hey, i got one, how about not giving crazy people guns? Might help.
but, hey, tell the 15 year old girl that survived her family getting wiped out that guns are great and awesome and how the man was completely within his god given right.
This is too vague. What does 'more stringent' mean specifically and how do you propose to implement and enforce it?
Which loopholes?
After Columbine, Colorado closed its “gun-show loophole,” but efforts to close the loophole on the national level failed. The National Rifle Association and other anti-gun-control groups worked diligently to defend the loophole—misnamed, because while loophole suggests a small opening not easily negotiated, about 40 percent of all legal gun sales take place at gun shows, on the Internet, or through more-informal sales between private sellers and buyers, where buyers are not subject to federal background checks. Though anti-loophole legislation passed the U.S. Senate, it was defeated in the House of Representatives. On top of that, the 1994 ban on sales of certain types of semiautomatic weapons, known as the assault-weapons ban, expired in 2004 and was not reauthorized.
originally posted by: HauntWok
One argument that the pro gun crowd often uses is that people kill people with cars, but they don't ban cars. Let's go with this shall we?
Do you know what they do require of drivers? Licenses, and insurance.
...So, how about this? Why do we, the tax paying public have to foot the cost for some gun nut going crazy and blowing the hell out of a shopping center, or school, or other public place? I say we make "law abiding gun owners" carry insurance that would cover the costs associated with these tragedies.
Let's start with the gun show loophole and the online sales loophole:
Crazy people shouldn't have firearms.
originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: HauntWok
"Crazy people shouldnt have firearms"
You sir are the most crazed poster on this thread
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: HauntWok
And how exactly do you propose to deal with people that pass your check by professionals, but later develop mental problems?