Originally Posted by errand
Yeah, they got rejected....so the fact that it is even being suggested or submitted doesn't give you cause to ponder the long term implications?
I highlighted the key words.....typical words used when the government is trying to control you and take away your freedoms.....forget that they're talking about guns.....what if they were talking about free speech?
I don't own a newspaper, a radio station, write a blog, or own a TV station so I should be OK with that? GTFO of here!
What if they were talking about any other rights listed in the Bill of Rights?
You understand that the reason we need the government to intervene and regulate guns is because the public can't control themselves.
If gun owners would stop allowing their toys to fall into the hands of mass murderers then we wouldn't need regulation.
Just like the banking system. The government is not trying to control the banks through regulation, they are stepping in because the banks could not regulate themselves.
I would bet more than not that anywhere there is regulation, there was an abuse of power that led to the regulation being inacted.
Do I believe in a free society you should be able to own a hand gun or hunting rifle, sadly yes. Do I think you need an AR15 and a 30 round clip? No, Do I think any of the regulations being asked for are out of line? No, I think they are too weak to stop another attack on the public by another gun owner.