Are Gun Laws Really Common Sense..or More of the Same Stupid Stuff?
Are gun laws really “common sense” or are they extraordinarily foolish? Let’s look at the gun control laws being asked for today. Do these regulations restrict criminals, or do they restrict honest citizens? Look at the record and decide for yourself.
-Anti-gun advocates say we should mandate “universal background checks.” That means you’d go to the gun store each time a firearm changed hands, even if it isn’t sold. You couldn’t borrow a gun to teach someone to shoot. You’d need a background check if you cleaned your girlfriend’s gun or if she touched yours..even if the guns are the same model, you both have carry permits, and you’re living together. Not without a background check and government permission. Does that really make us safer?
The anti-rights politicians certainly made it more cumbersome for honest people to own guns. Do you think criminals actually follow this law? Drug gangs don’t to to the gun store and get background checks when they trade drugs for guns. This “common sense gun control” seems like more of the same old propaganda than real common sense.
-The anti-rights activists want you disarmed in public. They want states to stop recognizing the concealed carry permits issued by other states.
Who are we disarming? Licensed concealed carry holders already had an FBI background check. When you look at their record, licensed concealed carriers are more law abiding than the police. The anti-rights gun control bigots say that disarming these scrupulously honest gun owners will disarm criminals. Is that true?
Criminals carry illegally and don’t bother to get a concealed carry permit. Is it common sense to disarm honest gun owners or is it more of the same old stupid stuff?
Advocates who work against your right to be armed want to register guns and ammunition. Drug gangs move tons of drugs, billions of dollars in cash, and millions of people across the US borders. Do you think the gangs will give up their guns simply because we regulate honest gun owners? I don’t see how. We already know that criminals get their guns illegally. Gun prohibition doesn’t work any better than drug and alcohol prohibition.
In fact, these gun control regulations leave more disarmed victims facing more armed criminals. That doesn’t make us safer. That doesn’t make sense at all.
Time and again the politicians claim to regulate honest citizens in the name of public safety. We’re told that certain firearms are too dangerous for us to own. Those same rules never apply to the police or the people guarding politicians. We’re told that honest gun owners need to take days of training and to pay hundreds of dollars in fees before they are safe enough. Is is really common sense to think that criminals bother to take those classes and pay those fees?
We’ve seen what gun control actually accomplished. Gun prohibition disarmed millions of honest civilians. The anti-rights bigots who propose more gun control shifted power to the government and to criminals. That never made common sense.
Do you think gun laws reduce crime?
SlowFacts 
It is to much to expect rational behavior from people infected with the anti gun/anti gun rights/anti constitutional rights virus, thatin my view is a given. What I submit remains to be determined is the following. Given that the most basic of civil/constitutional rights are involved in any sort of court action involving firearms, other than obvious cases of criminal action, how can cases be reviewed on any basis other than STRICT SCRUTINY?
LikeLike
They are only “common sense” to those who would limit if not eliminate the constitutional rights they happen to, at any given moment, disagree with. In other words, more of the same old rubbish.
LikeLike
Well if it did work Chicago wouldn’t have as many shootings as it does in California wouldn’t have 14 mass shootings.
But let’s look at state that recently added so called common sense gun control. New York and Connecticut both states under 50,000 people registered their so-called assault weapons?
The people said no.
LikeLike
Pardon me if you will, but I remain confused re this “assault weapon/assault rifle” business.
The correct definition for “assault rifle” is Selective Fire Capable Weapon Usually of Rifle Configuration, Chambered For Intermediate Cartridge”, courtesy of the U.S. Military, Jane’s Small Arms of The World and other authorities sources, sources that deal in fact, not hype. Would someone, anyone be so kind as to calmly, without emotion, please define “assault weapon”. Many thanks. Oh by the way, Remington and Winchester offered on the domestic market, prior to World War 1 Semiautomatic Rifles in a number of calibers. Of course, these rifles had walnut stocks, some of which were quite attractive looking, beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Some had detachable box magazines too. If one wants to discuss firearms and or Gun Control, might that be taken to mean the elimination of private ownership and use of firearms, let’s do it without the media hype, and without the emotional claptrap that unfortunately is the stock and trade of the anti gun
LikeLike