Comment: I would be polite and explain where she is incorrect...

(See in situ)

I would be polite and explain where she is incorrect...

I am for EXPANDED gun control legislation. I don't want anyone to be able to legally purchase any gun without having a background check. This includes gun shows, Internet, family, friend or any other outlet.
In a perfect world this would be a great idea. The problem is criminals do not care about legislation. They will purchase guns on the street without background checks no matter what legislation is created to target legal, responsible gun owners.
I'm also a little more extreme in my interests than Dale as far as I know. I think that people should have to pass a test (as we do in order to drive legally) before being allowed to purchase a gun. If they pass the background check and the test, then they can have access to legal guns. The test would question someone's good sense in ensuring the safety of their weapon. It should demonstrate that the person has at least read and understands some basic safety materials including safe storage and use of the weapon and who should and should not be allowed access to their guns (Newtown).
This also is a great idea, and where I live youths must attend firearms safety courses before they can go hunting for any game. So what you have mentioned is not only reasonable, but it is the path that most if not all responsible gun owners go through already. So with that said, what in the legislation would you like to see that would effectively make us safer since what you have mentioned is already law in most states?
Finally, I would like a law that says that large magazines and fully automatic weapons are not legal for purchase by the general public.
Large capacity magazines are a myth, spread to confuse those that are not familiar with firearm functionality. What is the difference between 1-100 round magazine and 10-10 round magazines? The answer is about 30 seconds. If we look at Sandy Hook as an example we see that the police took 20 minutes to respond, and the shooting took less than 5 minutes to create the damage that occurred. So if you figure it takes roughly 3 seconds to change a magazine, he still could have shot 100 rounds but have taken him 30 additional seconds loading additional clips. So if the police could shave off 14.5 minutes on their response time then the magazine issue would be an issue, presently it is the anti gun folks that spread this disinformation to those that are not familiar with a firearms functionality. So again, when you ban large capacity magazines, then only the criminal element will have them, and police might be able to carry them so when they respond 14.5 minutes after the attack. So far as fully automatic weapons, the ones used in crimes are bought from the black market; you know, the same one that would be a buzz when responsible gun owners are restricted because of knee jerk reactions by people who are ignorant of firearms, and only listen to those trying to sway their opinion. Full auto’s can be owned after paying for a $200.00 federal firearms license (which means the gun/guns are registered), a extensive background check and a sign off from your local sheriff, as well as the gun itself costing in the 8-15 thousand dollar range. New legislation aimed at curbing the law abiding's rights does not solve the problem of criminals with guns. In fact in areas where firearms are prevalent, violent crime is low, check it out for yourself.
I know that irresponsible gun owners will not follow the safety rules no matter what, but at least they will have had access to the knowledge and can face prosecution for the irresponsible use or storage of their weapons. I also know that criminals will still break the law. If the laws I want were passed, we would then have a means for prosecuting criminals who have guns that are not legal. Finally, I know that these are not complete solutions to the mass killings in America, but they are a start. And, I'd like to get started, please.
Your first sentence sums up everything I have spoken about. The problem with your view is that all you have mentioned is already law. Background checks for legal gun purchases, machine guns are already one of the most regulated items in our society, breaking the law is breaking the law. When you state “.
If the laws I want were passed, we would then have a means for prosecuting criminals who have guns that are not legal.”
That’s already a law too.

So in reality, everything you mentioned either is already a law on the books, is irrelevant at stopping violent crime, or does nothing to stop another Adam Lanza from committing another heinous crime. While all new legislation of recent months has done is target law abiding gun owners whose firearms have never been involved in a shooting, a crime, nor will they ever. The anti gunners like to talk about the gun show loophole which is less than 1% of gun transactions, but the cold hard fact is the shoot your mom in the face and steal her firearm loophole will never be fixed by legislation, only used to destroy the law abiding Americans right to their own protection, and another right given to us by those who gave their lives to ensure our freedom.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an