I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.
I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians.
- Thread starter Lawrence
- Start date
Wish more people would do the same. Then yesterday seeing what people really say I don't think there will be any real gun reform laws.
The White House can't do anything about it. Send the e-mails to your Senators and Congressperson if they don't already share your views.
Fortunately, all 3 of mine already do!
I think we will hear of an explosion soon of computers at the white house, senators, congressman and governors from all the emails they are receiving.
I think anyone that even purchases a gun should go through a psychiatric review and deep interview about any reason they have need for a gun.
I know that many people have guns for hunting, okay, many people have guns for personal protection, okay. They should all go through a more detailed check. How many guns are used incorrectly, safety measures not followed without in depth training. How many are maimed or killed by people that don't know how to handle a gun properly. Many have killed theirself or family by one simple mistake.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Yes. Congress creates laws, not the president.
@Lawrence - The most a president can do is make an executive order to tighten control in a specific way or impose changes that aren't unconstitutional. He can't do it to disarm citizens of legal weapons, tho.
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
Well as i have said before .... then we had better do the same with cars. Because until just last year, they [cars] were the leading instrument of death involving young people.
"
How many are maimed or killed by people that don't know how to handle a gun properly. Many have killed theirself or family by one simple mistake."
Same can be said about cars [particularly high HP cars] In the hands of unskilled drivers they are just as dangerous.
If the argument is that a person doesn't 'need' this or that gun ..... then the same argument can be said about a person not needing this or that car.
High capacity magazine semi-auto rifle ....... who needs that ??
700 HP Mustang/Camaro/Challenger ...... who needs that ??
None of it is the business of anyone except the buyer.
"
How many are maimed or killed by people that don't know how to handle a gun properly. Many have killed theirself or family by one simple mistake."
Same can be said about cars [particularly high HP cars] In the hands of unskilled drivers they are just as dangerous.
If the argument is that a person doesn't 'need' this or that gun ..... then the same argument can be said about a person not needing this or that car.
High capacity magazine semi-auto rifle ....... who needs that ??
700 HP Mustang/Camaro/Challenger ...... who needs that ??
None of it is the business of anyone except the buyer.
ElCastor
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern CA
I believe it needs to be taken a step further. After a date certain, mere possession of a semi-automatic weapon by a civilian should be a crime. That said, gang members and criminals in general, will not surrender their weapons, and even if not legally manufactured or imported they will no doubt pour across the border. The punishment for the use of one of those weapons in the commission of a crime should be severe. In any event, who are we kidding. It's not going to happen.
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
OK, ya want to get tough with gun criminals ? Let's do that ..... I support your thought. In the future if an illegal weapon is used in the commission of a crime ? ........ Then the criminal/thug {with absolute evidence proof of guilt} that does so should put to death in no more than 30 days ... No appeals.
Indeed ..... punish the criminal, not the sportsman.
Judycat
Well-known Member
- Location
- Pennsylvania
Good for you. I hope you get a response.
Hmm - so you want to make me and my two older brothers criminals because we wish to exercise our 2nd amendment rights, yet accomplish nothing as a result. Got it...
Gaer
"Angel whisperer"
- Location
- New Mexico U.S.A.
The confiscation of semi-automatic weapons will be a "foot in the door" to disarm the country.
(This is all just my own opinion)
Hitler said, " To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens".
Law abiding citizens hold the right to keep and bear arms, given by the Founding Fathers and,
IMO, it's the duty of every American citizen to uphold the amendments of the Constitution.
Certainly, He has the right to send e-mails of his adverse opinion, just as I have the right to say this.
If you look at world history, every country which has been disarmed is followed by tremendous violence..
China 1935: 20 million Chinese killed
Russia 1929: 20 million Russians killed
Germany 1938: 6 million people killed
Freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms, no matter how unpopular they are now
in light of the mass killings, are necessary for the freedom of the nation.
People must keep the right to defend themselves and their families.
I will say no more, but I had to have my say. I know this is an unpopular view,
so I won't even follow this thread to read the reactions.
(This is all just my own opinion)
Hitler said, " To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens".
Law abiding citizens hold the right to keep and bear arms, given by the Founding Fathers and,
IMO, it's the duty of every American citizen to uphold the amendments of the Constitution.
Certainly, He has the right to send e-mails of his adverse opinion, just as I have the right to say this.
If you look at world history, every country which has been disarmed is followed by tremendous violence..
China 1935: 20 million Chinese killed
Russia 1929: 20 million Russians killed
Germany 1938: 6 million people killed
Freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms, no matter how unpopular they are now
in light of the mass killings, are necessary for the freedom of the nation.
People must keep the right to defend themselves and their families.
I will say no more, but I had to have my say. I know this is an unpopular view,
so I won't even follow this thread to read the reactions.
ElCastor
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern CA
I support the 2nd Amendment, but it is up to the SC to determine if an AR15, or any semi-automatic, is a 2nd amendment right. How about a Browning machine gun, grenade, or bazooka? Where do we draw the line? We can (I hope) draw a line at semi-automatic weapons, and you and your brothers could still own revolvers and pump/bolt action rifles and shotguns. Will that stop murders on the subway, crowd, or classroom. Probably not, but it will make mass murder less attractive to loons and still give you the means to defend your home.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
The White House doesn't pass laws. That's the responsibility of Congress, otherwise known as the legislative branch of government. I'd bet Congress and the White House get 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of emails every day, so chances are, nobody's going to pay any attention to it anyway.
Tish
SF VIP
- Location
- Rural N.S.W. Australia
Well done! Kudos.
Paco Dennis
SF VIP
- Location
- Mid-Missouri
Thank You for your active citizen response!! This battle for gun reform will be a major issue in the mid-terms. Probably will hit the streets from here on...
The Supreme Court has already said that arms "in common use" which would certainly include AR-type should not be prohibited. the others you mentioned fail that test, but I suspect you knew that. And my Glock hand gun is a semi-automatic.
SCOTUS
Most of our mass murderers kill themselves after they've created carnage, Tougher sentences mean nothing to them.
It's innocent children who are being punished so that you can enjoy your "sport" of killing animals. Have you considered playing softball, tennis, basketball, biking, or throwing darts at targets? Is it not fun unless something dies?
Why do you suppose the Supreme Court thinks the rights of the gun owners are more important than the rights of children to go to school and come home alive? What happened to their right to the pursuit of happiness or even to grow up?
Bellbird
-Oceania-South Pacific
- Location
- New Zealand
Using a semi automatic or auto for hunting is not hunting, nor is it sportsman like, the animal is at a distinct disadvantage to start with.
Lethe200
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
If you want action on ANY laws, petition Congress. It's the Senate, specifically, that has refused to bring up ANY gun control legislation. Several bills have passed the House over the years, but the Senators have blocked bringing a vote to the floor.
BTW, as a liberal I'd like to let folks know that a lot of us happen to have guns, like guns, and yes we do go out to shooting ranges. Nonetheless, background checks and restrictions are needed.
Please remember the Constitution talks about the right to bear firearms. It does not say you have the right to buy and use cannons or mines - the 18th century military equivalent of assault weapons.
I am somewhat confused at one of the posts above. Quoting 1935 China is confusing the issue, if you are referring to either the Japanese invasion into Manchuria in 1931, or the decline of the ruling Nationalist party versus the Chinese communists (1935 was Mao tse-Tung's "Long March" now enshrined in Mainland China's history). The first was a war between two countries that have long been enemies; the second was a civil war against the ethnic Han elite.
More people have died from famine in Mainland China in recent history, than from any firearms (strictly controlled by the CCP and almost impossible for civilians to obtain) or military weapons, even counting the current Uygur genocide. Forty years ago China was in the middle of the world's largest famine: between the spring of 1959 and the end of 1961 some 30 million Chinese starved to death.
BTW, as a liberal I'd like to let folks know that a lot of us happen to have guns, like guns, and yes we do go out to shooting ranges. Nonetheless, background checks and restrictions are needed.
Please remember the Constitution talks about the right to bear firearms. It does not say you have the right to buy and use cannons or mines - the 18th century military equivalent of assault weapons.
I am somewhat confused at one of the posts above. Quoting 1935 China is confusing the issue, if you are referring to either the Japanese invasion into Manchuria in 1931, or the decline of the ruling Nationalist party versus the Chinese communists (1935 was Mao tse-Tung's "Long March" now enshrined in Mainland China's history). The first was a war between two countries that have long been enemies; the second was a civil war against the ethnic Han elite.
More people have died from famine in Mainland China in recent history, than from any firearms (strictly controlled by the CCP and almost impossible for civilians to obtain) or military weapons, even counting the current Uygur genocide. Forty years ago China was in the middle of the world's largest famine: between the spring of 1959 and the end of 1961 some 30 million Chinese starved to death.
Alligatorob
SF VIP
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
I believe we have 'most' of that in many states ....... particularly registration.
But of course many people drive everyday without any of it as well.
Which is why IMO it is much more a 'people' problem, than anything.
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
So ....... here again, you are one of those that try to put words in my mouth, things I never said. Making it personal , with sideways accuations.
Try to put aside your disdain for me, and comment with a reasonable response to the topic.