Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:11 AM
sunnystarr (2,498 posts)
Control the Ammo
EVERY gun should require registration. That however won't protect against what happened yesterday. Those guns were legally registered.
The gun freaks, who believe guns make you safe, must believe that they should have a loaded gun with them at all times, since a gun locked in a gun safe isn't available to protect anyone.
With all the guns floating around in our country, it is next to impossible to eliminate them. So control the ammo. If someone wants to buy ammo they'll need to provide their gun registration number and legal identification (ie: driver's licence) which should be available to confirm through a database. Concealed weapon licenses should require training with yearly licencing and training certification. The ammo for these guns should be limited to a certain number.
All semi-auto and auto weaponry and multi round clips should be illegal to all but approved agencies (ie: police or security).
This will allow those who collect guns to display them. NO AMMO.
The gun nuts are right. Guns don't kill people. The ammo kills people.
May those beautiful little souls rest in peace. My heart breaks for the families of all the victims of this senseless tragedy.
7 replies, 786 views
Control the Ammo (Original post)
|Mel Content||Dec 2012||#5|
Response to sunnystarr (Original post)
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:37 AM
Squinch (10,564 posts)
1. And for any violation of whatever new laws we make, the penalties should be prohibitively severe.
Also: licensure laws being a real disincentive, gun amnesty and buyback programs, ban on use of assault weapons with greatly extended jail time if an assault weapon is used in the commission of a crime.
We could go on and on. THere are things we can do. I agree that there are a lot of guns floating around and that is a difficult problem. But we can begin.
Your idea is a good one, but I think there should be more than a drivers license required to buy ammunition.
Response to pipoman (Reply #2)
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:29 AM
Loudly (2,436 posts)
3. No amendment required. Just correctly interpret the existing one.
Correctly interpret it for a postbellum society. Which fully recognizes that no right to armed rebellion exists.
Response to Loudly (Reply #3)
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:48 AM
pipoman (15,380 posts)
Trying to change the meaning of words and history is much more difficult than using the Democratic process..
Response to Mel Content (Reply #5)
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:59 AM
sunnystarr (2,498 posts)
7. Honestly I don't think it's the real gun nuts
who decide on mass shootings. In this case if the mother wasn't a gun nut who went to shooting ranges with her sons, I doubt it would have happened. The access was just too easy and i doubt he'd have the kind of money it would take to purchase those guns and ammo illegally (since he wasn't 21 yet for legal purchase).