Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Carlton
Exactly.
The scenario that you indicated is realistic and, if you could eliminate all handguns, including dads target shooting .45, your proposed solution would have merit to eliminate the very narrow scenario that you stated above.
I've certainly considered your idea and the idea itself is not reprehensible to me. Because you're unable to read what I post and process it, I'll say it again.........this time in bold:
I couldn't care less if Mr. Dropnosky's laws resulted in the elimination of all automatic handguns because in this state, I cannot legally carry one anyway.
The problem with your proposal is that it is a pipe dream. It's about as unrealistic as you could possible get in this country. Nobody is going to go for anything that restricts their ability to own a firearm. You'd be lucky to get gun registration in place in every state of the union. So, I wish you'd kindly quit with these over the top recommendations that have absolutely no basis in reality.
Like I originally said............"you and your kind"............all kinds of proposals...........all of them basically worthless in this society.
|
hey, now you are talking instead of attacking, good move. Guess you got fed?
So what would be achievable in this society? armed teachers? pill boxes in the hallways?
Do you understand where I am going when I say that moves like that are moves just like the patriot act, and are a way to limit our rights dressed in protection for all?
What I advocate (and if you see the prior post, you see I don't believe such restrictions would happen, but it would be nice) is modification of a SINGLE right in the provisions of the 2nd amendment
the narrow scenario is the one where big groups of people are getting killed. If such a plan only worked in a narrow scope, it would still be something