Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
But to answer your main question, I would support
-criminal background checks
-banning criminals with violent convictions from owning guns
-manditory safety locks sold with guns
-POSSIBLY a mandatory safety course before a gun could be purchased.
-increased penalties for straw purchases, dealers not following the rules, gun crimes, etc.
-keeping fully automatic weapons, explosives and other "distructive devices" under the 1934 act
What I don't support:
-waiting periods
-limits on the amount of gun purchases
-outlawing any guns on cosmetic features
-outlawing .50 caliber rifles
|
I pretty much agree with your standards, except that I think waiting periods for "saturday night specials" are useful. However, "increased penalties for dealers not following the rules" might work in place of waiting periods.
I also think reasonable limits on number of guns owned might be useful, with an exception for antiques.
Which brings me back to one of my original points. The NRA rhetoric about being being "for" gun control or "against" gun control really just polarizes the conversations. You are for gun control, and I am for gun control, we just happen to have slightly different opinions on what the rules should be.
The NRA likes to argue that they are the pure keeper of the 2nd amendment, but the fact is that they don't want completely unregulated gun ownership, nor do you. So for all the posturing of the NRA, they violate "shall not be infringed" too.
I understand why the NRA gets so worked up. The posturing just irks me, that's all.
Oh hey, Wayne LaPierre was on the commonwealth club last week, it was an excellent program. You can hear it here:
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/arch...rre-audio.html
He did a great job with what must have been a pretty hostile audience. (The commonwealth club is a bunch of san francisco intellectuals.)