Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Gun Control
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 190013" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>On Sunday I had to run an errand so when I got in the car I decided to flip through the radio dial just to see what was on. I flipped by one station and it was a lady talking to Sean Hannity on the VT shooting. This lady IMO raised a very interesting point related to gun control but it was not the usual course however. She suggested that one way to regulate was not via the guns but rather the ammo and to avoid the natural 2nd amendment recourse, conduct the ammo regs under the pretext of the commerce clause. As she really was getting into the meat of her reasoning, Sean cut to a commercial break and that was the end of that. Really ticked me off that he did that so I turned the channel again to some music since I was taking my daughter to get some timpani mallets and gave up on the radio.</p><p></p><p>In the 1930's or maybe the 20's (my sometimers is kicking in) the US enacted federal laws regulating machine guns. Reality at the time told them an all out ban would likely fail if a Constitutional challenge was leveled but a heavily regulated provision would hold and it has. I do think the precedence is there to move forward with handguns or any firearm for that fact but right now the political will is just not there. Even Harry Reid who last week said that a new federal gun law was not gonna happen knows the reality of politics in America. I do think however that it is just a matter of time before the tide will turn and pistols and so-called assault type weapons will face the pressure of being regualted much to the extent as we now see with Class 3 weapons. You'll still be able to have your gun but only after going through a more thorough background check and paying a transfer tax to own such weapons. </p><p></p><p>I still ask the question, what would our VT shooter have done in his state of mind had no firearms been available? Would this in itself have prevent any form of violence? The even scarier answer IMO is found on the streets of Iraq almost on a daily basis. The problem is in the heart people, not in a tangible object!</p><p></p><p>Wait, I get it! I get it! I get it! Get rid of all guns and all wars will stop too! Right? Does it really work like that?</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/confused1.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" data-shortname=":confused:" />1 </p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/wink.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink:" title="Wink :wink:" data-shortname=":wink:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 190013, member: 2189"] On Sunday I had to run an errand so when I got in the car I decided to flip through the radio dial just to see what was on. I flipped by one station and it was a lady talking to Sean Hannity on the VT shooting. This lady IMO raised a very interesting point related to gun control but it was not the usual course however. She suggested that one way to regulate was not via the guns but rather the ammo and to avoid the natural 2nd amendment recourse, conduct the ammo regs under the pretext of the commerce clause. As she really was getting into the meat of her reasoning, Sean cut to a commercial break and that was the end of that. Really ticked me off that he did that so I turned the channel again to some music since I was taking my daughter to get some timpani mallets and gave up on the radio. In the 1930's or maybe the 20's (my sometimers is kicking in) the US enacted federal laws regulating machine guns. Reality at the time told them an all out ban would likely fail if a Constitutional challenge was leveled but a heavily regulated provision would hold and it has. I do think the precedence is there to move forward with handguns or any firearm for that fact but right now the political will is just not there. Even Harry Reid who last week said that a new federal gun law was not gonna happen knows the reality of politics in America. I do think however that it is just a matter of time before the tide will turn and pistols and so-called assault type weapons will face the pressure of being regualted much to the extent as we now see with Class 3 weapons. You'll still be able to have your gun but only after going through a more thorough background check and paying a transfer tax to own such weapons. I still ask the question, what would our VT shooter have done in his state of mind had no firearms been available? Would this in itself have prevent any form of violence? The even scarier answer IMO is found on the streets of Iraq almost on a daily basis. The problem is in the heart people, not in a tangible object! Wait, I get it! I get it! I get it! Get rid of all guns and all wars will stop too! Right? Does it really work like that? :confused1 :wink: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Gun Control
Top