Quote flippycat:
I don't think you include criminals in your" idiots with guns statement".
I did read them ..if the whackos and gang bangers can legally buy a gun then they do not seem to be criminals or am I on the wrong track on that.. ?
Quote:
lol I understand your plight..but a little self absorbed imo.
The way you direct the need for these higher measures of scrutiny for all purchases it has a tone your more inclined to know what is better for all especially with your accompanying test. I think it highlights a need that is not really needed unless being compared to something....*....IE the tone in which makes me believe by reading your post that your standards of safety and handling are far superior and should be used as a baseline for all others.
The real issue which has always been the issue, there are some who always feel they know what is better for others. Me personally do not feel I should be impacted by someone elses ideals of what they think is best for me ...ESPECIALLY when my actions have no bearing on them whats so ever.
I am law abiding, safe and live in a great state that does not scrutinize firearm owners to some unrealistic standard.
Though, for EXAMPLE only someone recently thought it was a great idea to make my cigarettes firesafe (maybe someone with stock in bic as I have to relight the same cigarette 2-3 times sometimes) . WHY? I do not fall asleep with my cigarettes, I use an ashtray and I am of legal age to purchase them and have never started a house fire due to neglectful cigarette handling.
I see what you would like as the "new" qualifications similar to the example above. I am a safe and a law abiding owner, though would be subject in the future to some weird qualification when nothing has changed on my end, only someone thinking they know what is best for me.
IMO what your looking to do actually goes against or at the very least add's another giant firewall to the second amendment you know by heart for those looking to exercise their right.
My
I don't think you include criminals in your" idiots with guns statement".
Maybe you should try reading the rest of the posts on this thread:
Quote:
I also think that something like this could prevent a lot of whackos and gang bangers from legally buying guns
I did read them ..if the whackos and gang bangers can legally buy a gun then they do not seem to be criminals or am I on the wrong track on that.. ?
Quote:
lol I understand your plight..but a little self absorbed imo.
I don't too much appreciate this comment and I'd like you to back it up, first time I can remember being called "self absorbed".
The way you direct the need for these higher measures of scrutiny for all purchases it has a tone your more inclined to know what is better for all especially with your accompanying test. I think it highlights a need that is not really needed unless being compared to something....*....IE the tone in which makes me believe by reading your post that your standards of safety and handling are far superior and should be used as a baseline for all others.
The real issue which has always been the issue, there are some who always feel they know what is better for others. Me personally do not feel I should be impacted by someone elses ideals of what they think is best for me ...ESPECIALLY when my actions have no bearing on them whats so ever.
I am law abiding, safe and live in a great state that does not scrutinize firearm owners to some unrealistic standard.
Though, for EXAMPLE only someone recently thought it was a great idea to make my cigarettes firesafe (maybe someone with stock in bic as I have to relight the same cigarette 2-3 times sometimes) . WHY? I do not fall asleep with my cigarettes, I use an ashtray and I am of legal age to purchase them and have never started a house fire due to neglectful cigarette handling.
I see what you would like as the "new" qualifications similar to the example above. I am a safe and a law abiding owner, though would be subject in the future to some weird qualification when nothing has changed on my end, only someone thinking they know what is best for me.
IMO what your looking to do actually goes against or at the very least add's another giant firewall to the second amendment you know by heart for those looking to exercise their right.
My
statement was a little strong and I do apologize if I used it out of context to an extent.self absorbed