In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

They want gun reform? Okay...

Rocky RaabRocky Raab Member Posts: 14,196 ✭✭✭✭
If they want to curb gun violence, here are some "common sense" steps they can take immediately...

Ban all first-person shooter video games, and confiscate all existing ones.

Ban all high-capacity firearms from movies.

Fix the existing background check program by insuring all local police and psychiatric records be tied to the federal database.

Pass state exemption laws that standardize gun laws across all municipalities.

Revoke all onerous gun laws that are shown to be ineffective or unenforceable.

Rigorously enforce existing gun laws for use of guns in violent crimes, gun possession by felons, and illegal gun trafficking.

Make prison sentences for gun violence consecutive, not concurrent.
I may be a bit crazy - but I didn't drive myself.


  • Options
    spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 37,724 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    and start reducing the number of firearms in the military....quit training young men to use them and then sending them back chicago and baltimore...surely the rest of the world will appreciate this pacification and reduction of our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS .....maybe boko haram in africa will kill only 100 instead of 200 innocent in respect for our politically correct change in policy
  • Options
    Sam06Sam06 Member Posts: 21,254 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I got a better idea

    Let people carry a gun if they choose to, even encourage it as per the 2a.

    Neither one of these guys would have lasted 10 seconds if there were armed people near by.

    The guy in walmart had people throwing bottles at him to distract him. What would have happened if someone had a gun, he would have been shot and the deal would have been over. Heck why didn't someone go get a 30-30 and some ammo from the sporting goods area and shoot the guy right there in the store.

  • Options
    Rocky RaabRocky Raab Member Posts: 14,196 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Additionally, if the antis think that signs actually work, how about if public places post "Armed Citizens Likely Present Here"

    One, it would probably discourage crazies from picking that place as their shooting grounds, and

    Two, would keep liberal snowflakes far away.
    I may be a bit crazy - but I didn't drive myself.
  • Options
    Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,277 ******
    edited November -1
    I think one of the more effective things would be to give it no attention at all. Kill all the immediate family members of the perp, torture any perp caught alive and call it a day.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,476 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Not a fan of banning anything or increasing the burden on those that have not proven themselves to disabled from ownership.

    My personal belief is that we should get rid of the entire background check system, but I am realistic enough to know that will never fly.

    That said, we will always need ask ourselves 'What price do we pay for freedom?'.

    We need transportation, so we accept a death toll from accidents that is far higher than that of non-suicide gun deaths.

    We need doctors, so we accept a death toll from medical mistakes that is far higher than that of total gun deaths.

    The mantra we need to address is that weapons that are reasonably effective against military, para-military, and police forces are not necessary, and therefore we cannot accept the relatively few deaths associated with crimes committed using firearms.

    If we are going to be honest with ourselves, we should probably recognize that the only truly effective way to significantly reduce criminal killings with firearms is to remove firearms from the individual American. The 10 year AWB resulted in (depending upon what source you choose to believe) a minimal to negligible reduction in deaths by firearm. We all know, of course, that the AWB did not confiscate existing weapons, only caused manufacturers to jump through a number of hoops to configure that which was banned to a new legal standard.

    Therefore if restricting the introduction of new weapons has little effect, one must then go to the next step; something that is near unthinkable in America today, though may be possible in our great-grandchildren's America.

    So we are left with the concept of a number of firearm killings per-capita that is sufficiently unacceptable such that we need to go down the path of confiscation. Banning first-person shooters in video games, or mass shootings in movies are, IMO, just feel-good legislation that will most likely achieve little other than providing a couple of lines on a re-election webpage.

    It is said that we have to give back some of our freedom in order to keep the bulk of it. The next time something like this happens, we will be told that we have to give a little more in order keep the bulk of what is left. The endgame is obvious.

    Bottom line is that if you want to live in a free society, people will be killed by aberrant members of that society. If you think there should be a limit to freedom, please tell us the tipping point in killings per person that you find acceptable, and we can try an create a response with proper limits on government that will achieve this desired head count.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    select-fireselect-fire Member Posts: 69,453 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gun reform... instead of using 230 gr ball I am using +P
Sign In or Register to comment.