Reply With Quote
im not necessarily against any of this. im just not for destruction of all confiscated weapons. its inneficient
I didn't say they were.
Under my rules, Good Guys can have all they guns they qualify for, can pay for, and can stay annually qualified and payint out. This approach criminalizes more thoroughly and with lower thresholds the Bad Guys.
I would also pay a bounty equal to the price of confiscated guns to people who turn in anybody, good or bad guy, without proper registration, insurnace, proof of purchase.
im not necessarily against any of this. im just not for destruction of all confiscated weapons. its inneficient
inefficient? strange term. Why put guns back in circulation when there are already a couple 300M guns too many in circulation?
Good Guys who's guns have been confiscated can get them back if they re-qualify, pay up whatever, after a painful waiting period of at least severa months.
btw, any household where a member has more than one DUI or stimulant violation loses all the guns until ... I dunno, ... a long time.
any household where there is physical abuse loses all guns until ...
any body with a restraining order loses all guns until 1 year after the order is lifted.
financially inefficient. money down the drain.
if ur all for the good guys buying guns, why not let them just buy the confiscated guns instead of destroying them and forcing the manufacturers to build another one
not gonna setup govt employees to sell confiscated guns, destroy them. My stringent rules will put a huge dent in the gun mfrs profits, EFFICIENTLY.
cheaper then beef
lol at people thinking there are to many guns out there
if the president was so sure guns are a problem why do people protect him with guns
also if his health care was so great why is he not on it
Depends on our definition, but if you use the loosest definition you get two. How many have we had this year using your definition?
Brady Campaign: Oregon sheriff must ‘immediately resign’ for ‘extremist’ Sandy Hook and pro-gun views
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has called for Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin to immediately resign his position and to step down as the lead investigator for the Umpqua Community College mass shooting case.
“Citizens of Oregon voted for the expansion of Brady background checks in a law signed by Governor Brown this past May,” Brady Campaign President Dan Gross noted in a statement over the weekend.
“In pledging not to enforce the new law, John Hanlin has clearly demonstrated that his political ideology trumps his responsibility to protect his community. The victims of last week’s shooting and the entire community deserve a thorough investigation that will get to the bottom of this heinous crime – an investigation that must be grounded in facts and evidence, not myth and bias.”
Gross also pointed to the fact that Hanlin had posted a video on Facebook suggesting that the Sandy Hook shootings had been plot by the federal government to pass gun control laws.
“John Hanlin is not the man for the job,” Gross said during a conference call on Monday.
Gross argued that it would be difficult to trust that the sheriff had not omitted facts from the investigation because of his “extremist ideology.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/brad...e+Raw+Story%29
I bet this asshole is member of insane Oath Keepers.
Hanlin writing Biden that he wouldn't enforce the law
https://www.facebook.com/DouglasCoSO...018365/?type=3
Interesting. So you're saying that the shooting was actually set up by POTUS as payback. Possibly using an MK Ultra asset.
^daily reminder that no one ever reads your links
Last edited by m>s; 10-05-2015 at 03:54 PM.
crazy
Oregon shooter’s mother was an avid gun enthusiast who stockpiled weapons for fear of confiscation
Details emerge painting a picture of a mother who armed and trained her disturbed son
14 guns.
The 26-year-old man who walked into a writing class last Thursday armed with six guns, spare ammunition magazines and body armor to carry out the latest American mass shooting, had even more weaponry stockpiled in the home he shared with his mother.
In total, law enforcement officials confiscated 14 guns belonging to Christopher Harper-Mercer or his mother, Laurel Harper.
Officials said the guns were all traced back to a federal firearms dealer and seven of the weapons had been purchased legally by Harper-Mercer or other family members over the last three years.
According to multiple reports, the shooter’s mother boasted online about her arsenal and feared that gun ownership would soon be restricted.
“When the mood strikes,” Harper reportedly wrote on Facebook, “I sling an AR, Tek-9 or AK over my shoulder, or holster a Glock 21 (not 22), or one of my other handguns, like the Sig Sauer P226, and walk out the door.” Shotguns, she said, “are a little too bersome to open carry.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/05/oreg..._confiscation/
so the mom was in on it? I hadn't seen that take yet. Wonder if BigMedia lets it out???
nuture or nature? this crazy probably got corrupted in her parents home about guns
wait...are you saying that her parents are in on this also? Who was president when her parents became operatives? Do you think it was that damn Nixon????
no. I'm guessing her gun obsession certainly was an example for her sicko son, indicating she's probably a sicko herself. "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle ... "
yeah...that was a crazy movie fo sho. Whatever happened to her?
Australia has been far safer from gun crime since the implementation of strict gun laws.
Last edited by Blizzardwizard; 10-05-2015 at 03:50 PM.
probably her father, siblings.
no...I mean what happened to Rebecca DeMornay. She had those two iconic roles but nothing else to speak of.
the movie le is the origin of the phrase
http://www.potw.org/archive/potw391.html
what phrase? The Hand that Rocks the Cradle?
Australia always had low gun crime. Was the tradeoff worth the e in assault/sexual assault/robbery?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
