More effective/fairer gun control

[RYAN50BMG]

You mean like "Spell Check"? [headbang]

[Marlin]

You mean like "Spell Check"? [headbang]

+1



[poke]

[Delphi]

If spell check is all you care about.... than you have no hope in reasonable argument.

[HunterCO]

If spell check is all you care about.... than you have no hope in reasonable argument.

Delphi for gods sake quit while your behind.

enough said.

[Great-Kazoo]

Basically it would be a goverment regualted thing

like the crime bill and brady background check. see how well those went over.
10round mag limit, another good idea that didn't do sh^*t to slow crime down. only thing it did was jack the price of full cap mags out of this world.
waiting period for a gun, same there.

perhaps you should be posting over on the VPC boards. i'm sure your ideas wil be met with open arms, [poke]

[ronin223]

I am opposed to everything you said delphi.

A fire proof safe would mean make gun ownership difficult for the poor or lower middle class, and limit middle class and upper class gun ownership. ( i.e. buy a $200 shotgun because you want to shot some clays after watching the olympics and you never owned a gun or $1000 gun safe and $200 gun)

Second any testing of qualifications to own guns would just be perverted some day so it will be difficult to own a firearm. i.e. 500 question safety quiz which must be done in 50 min, must be able to shoot a 12 inch target at 600 yards with a pistol to qualify to own a gun, etc.

The old saying there are no good gun laws is correct in my opinion. If someone robs or murders with a gun blame the criminal not the gun.

[robsterclaw]

Those are some very liberal ideas, especially for someone who compares liberals to slinkies. Are you posting questions like this to counter-act the people who think you may be too immature to carry guns? Or are you just throwing out ideas to see what people think, because it's not clear what your agenda is.

Anyone that seems as desperate to carry a gun concealed, as you seem to be is frightening all by itself. Next you'll be posting that the oldest child in a family should be able to carry at an earlier age, because generally they mature faster, because of the responsibility.

Kids these days seem far less mature then they were 20 or 30 years ago. They all want everything now, they have no patience. They want to make 30 dollars an hour sitting on their lazy ass, they don't want to pay their dues and work their way up in a company. Some of which may pertain to you, some may not. I was generalizing.

1 last thought......the point being made about spell check...... an occasional word mispelled is not bad, but too many shows a lack of respect for the people who read your posts. I've been a member of many messege boards, for many years, and your posts won't be taken seriously due to spelling errors, horrible grammer, no paragraphs, and some of the other fairly easy to fix communication problems. Just take half a minute before you press the submit button and give it a quick look over.

[Marlin]

If spell check is all you care about.... than you have no hope in reasonable argument.

That is where You are wrong Son, Hard to take someone seriously when they can't spell for crap. Even the simple misuse of "Their","There", and "They're" is just irritating. I don't claim to be the Be all, Know all, of the spelling and punctuation world. But, it is definatly Guys like You that make Me feel better about My spelling. Buy Yourself a small dictonary, it'll do You a world of good.

I won't get into the original argument, I think robsterclaw,ronin,and the rest of the guys have covered it very well. I will say this though, every point You made is the cornerstone of libtard, gun grabbing thinking. Granted, I have seen a few People that I think shouldn't be allowed within a 100 yards of a gun, But, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the right to own that gun.

In closeing, in Your sigline, change it to "Being" thank You.

[Delphi]

Basically I am against the government limiting what types of weapons can be produced. (Machineguns)

I thought that maybe if a good amount of testing could show that a person would be responsible, than they could own any weapon they wanted. Also with the tests they should be very stick so they could not be changed to impossible requirements.

Basically I think that allot of people in this country are generally just not intelligent enough to carry a gun. Many things that our forefathers have written have been changed, and there are many gun laws on the book right now. I think it would be better if all of those were thrown away and NRA training would just be a requirement for anyone seeking to purchase a gun.

And I have already said in an earlier reply that i wouldn’t mind getting rid of the gun safe part.

Do you guys really think that all the laws that we have on the books right now about guns are better than just a simple NRA safety test? The liberals in this country would never let us get rid of all the gun laws currently on book, that’s why one would have to give them a substitute so they can be happy. I think a NRA test would be the simplest, and easiest.

[7idl]

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

what part of "shall not" and "Infringed" is so hard to understand :?:

(websters)Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
transitive senses
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
synonym see TRESPASS

Our founding fathers were quite intelligent. They were very deliberate in their wording for the Constitution and bill of rights.