View Single Post
Old December 30, 2012, 07:31 PM   #95
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,591
Let's return to the opening post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by myshoulderissore
I am dedicated to discussing promoting reasonable methods to promote gun control AND gun ownership. Safe usage of guns should be priority #1 of gun ownership. This includes both safe handling practices and control over who can access them, on a personal level. Children should not have access to them without supervision and safety training, and thieves should not be able to access them without AT LEAST some trouble, locks, safes, etc.
What, exactly, are you proposing? Are you aware that the Sandy Hook shooting took place in a state that has an AWB in place, has a law mandating locked storage of firearms if there are children under 16 in the house, requires proof of firearms safety training as a prerequisite to issuing a carry permit, and requires reporting a stolen firearm within 72 hours? Did you know all that?

And then you must know that, at age 20, the shooter didn't qualify for a carry permit, but they don't apply to rifles anyway. His mother reportedly kept the guns in a safe or locked cabinet even though she was not required to by law. She was knowledgeable about firearms safety and had trained both her sons.

In other words, none of the things you apparently view as crucial based on your first post would have made any difference, as conclusively proven by the fact that they were ALL in place and they DIDN'T make any difference.

So what do have to bring to the table that WOULD make a difference, and that would NOT be an unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd Amendment RKBA?

Quote:
Originally Posted by myshoulderissore
Compromise is already here, has already happened.
No, "compromise" is not already here. Unconstitutional infringement is here. The gun laws we labor under today, almost entirely out the 20,000 or so that exist across the country, are not compromises. Compromise is when each side yields a little to the other side. All the yielding has been been on our side. The anti-gun side is never satisfied. In a true compromise, both sides can agree to settle something and get on with life. The anti-gunners take what they can get today, then next year they're back for yet another bite of the apple (or, as LawDog expressed it, another slice of OUR cake). If they can't get what they want in one try, they approach it like the death from a thousand cuts.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; December 30, 2012 at 07:52 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05339 seconds with 7 queries