Because the infringement has been and will continue to be incremental. Do you remember when you had to sign for .22 shells in Oregon? You had to sign for any ammo that could be used in a handgun. That avoided registering handguns, which people were strongly against, but it sure as hell told the state who had what kind of handguns law abiding citizens owned. They gave up on that, because it didn't do any good. Then background checks. Then assault weapon bans. Have you been asked about how many weapons you have in your home when you go to your doctor? If you haven't, you will. Kids are being kicked out of school for eating their pastry into the shape of a gun. Or folding a piece of paper into a gun shape. There seems to be a pattern here. The anti gun crowd waits their chance, then jumps when the time is right to take whatever rights they can. They freak'n admit that is the plan. You can go the other gun control thread for the dozens of quotes of politicians saying they want to take the guns. I'm curious why you doubt that they are sincere in saying that. Do you wonder why the government is buying 750 rounds of ammo? This is mostly hollow point bullets. They are not allowed for military use. Even if they were for military use, that is enough ammo for more than 10 years a the rate ammo was used during the Iraq war. Why do you think they are doing that? Make ammo unavailable to law abiding citizens. It sure as fuck has done that. Drop by and look at the ammo shelves at any store you go into. Make ammo too expensive for law abiding citizens to buy? If you can find AR 15 ammo, it's going for about $1 per bullet. Last year you could find it for out 30 cents per. Is it to intimidate law abiding citizens? Maybe, but it just pisses me off. (I don't own an AR, it's just one of the few rounds I've seen available lately.) There have always been crazy people that killed people and there always will be crazy people that kill people. If they can't buy a gun, they can steal one, borrow one or use another weapon. You laugh off he background checks on knives. Why? 22 people stabbed. :MARIS61: Registering knifes, especially scary looking knives, or knives over 3" in length just MIGHT SOMEDAY stop someone from being stabbed. Swords, HELL yes, we need background checks before some nut kills with one of those babies. I wonder how soon that asshole in Texas would have been stopped if a law abiding citizen had been carrying a concealed handgun. Go Blazers
Having known several therapists personally, they are not what I'd call "competent" to judge the sanity of others. Most people employed in the psychiatric field are rabid anti-gun nuts, so they'd be inclined to report ALL their patients as a threat. Anyone seeking care would be on the national nut list, rendering them unemployable. Soon, nobody would seek help for mental illness.
Add to the threat list anyone with a terminal disease, sports fans whose team lost a big game, recent divorcees, laid off workers, jilted boyfriends (somebody check ABM, s closet).
THIS JUST IN: Bipartisan gun control bill fails in the Senate. The measure would have expanded background checks.
The vote was 54-46. Four republicans voted for the bill. There are 53 democrats and 2 independents who are also democrats. Seems like a few democrats voted against it. Sinking the bill was clearly bipartisan.
Major Garrett @MajorCBS 24m Rs who voted for Manchin-Toomey amendment: Collins, Kirk, McCain, Toomey. Ds who voted against: Baucus, Begich, Heitkamp, Pryor and Reid. (that's right, Harry Reid voted against it)
People focus way too much on that part of the amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It sure seems like it's just an opening statement. The key point, however, is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I think it's pretty obvious that their intention was to keep the public armed so that the government could not impose tyranny on the people.
