Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
I believe they are really good friends of KeyboardWarrior.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
What about pawn shops? Guns are stolen out of those places all the time. Will they also be limited in the amount of guns that they can have for sale at one time?
Yes. Not that big of a deal.
When I was in the Air Force, I was an aircrew member on a C-130. Whenever we flew the plane outside of the CONUS, I had to carry a concealed 9mm. Before we took off, I had to go to the armory and check one out. When we landed, I would check it back in. Not a big deal at all.
Would I want to "penalize" somebody who has never shot somebody?
If that is how you look at it, yes. Just like car insurance. You don't only pay that AFTER you wreck. You pay that on your probability of wrecking.
That is nothing but living in fear. Communication that is available to EVERYBODY of the world today will ensure nothing like that will ever happen again. That seems to me a play in the "fear monger" game.
As for pawn shops, places that sell guns should have a VERY HIGH security burden placed upon them. Period.
Is it abolishing the 2nd Amendment? No.
Is it LIMITING it? Yes.
And you're going to need to put them within 20 miles of everyone. I would be livid if I had to drive an hour to pick up my guns each time I wanted to shoot them. When you do pick them up they are still just as likely to get stolen out of your car as they were before when you could keep them in your house.
It doesn't make sense. It is a billion dollar project with a ton of different avenues for corruption that only "fixes" one aspect of the problem. It could reduce the amount of guns that are stolen out of people's homes while adding a huge inconvenience for everyone. I don't think anyone wants to turn any money over to the government for insurance anyway. We already give them enough and get nothing in return.
I think that we need to start thinking about the impacts that guns have made, and are continuing to make, on our society.
I do NOT subscribe to the thought of "my right to own a gun supersedes the unfortunate death of your family member that was caused by one".
I think we need to move forward.
Would my little system work? Not sure. But I also don't think that what we currently are experiencing should be considered "acceptable".
So are you in favor of amending the 2nd to say "Limited"?
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
As ratified by the States, and Thomas Jefferson:
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.
I believe the ORIGINAL intent of the 2nd Amendment was for each STATE to be able to be autonomous from the Federal government.
Then it was amended, with "state" not being capitalized. That changed its' meaning.
In my opinion, our National Guard fills the role in which its' original form intended. They have access to arms equal to that of our Federal government (to an extent), and it is WELL REGULATED, and regularly musters like a "militia".
I don't think my interpretation is carried by my brothers though, and that is why I am amending my expectations to something that might be more palatable to the nation as a whole.
If we can change one we can change them all. That is a dangerous precedent to set.
But as a side, I do believe some reasonable limits can be set (to the 2nd) without infringing on our rights. I'm just not smart enough to know what those limits should be.
I also don't know what the "answer" is, but we should be able to at least have a discussion about it without people sinking to the behaviors typically displayed by the Lowest Common Denominator.
Peace,
BW
16 years, 200 lbs 6'2.......sound familiar? I can't believe they are picking on these poor little children.
We are getting closer to nabbing these punks.
Pit Row
How much of this is it just media being more readily available? I think a lot of what we're seeing and hearing is just the media being available to cover rather than things getting worse.
I'd be interested to see how many people per capita are shot each year now vs. what it has been historically. There's just more people, and media.
Shiftfaced, I don't agree with any of your suggestions. Any idea of taking guns from citizens will fail in practice because criminals will simply not give their guns up. That would leave us with armed criminals vs. unarmed law abiding citizens. That is a worse idea than where we're at right now.
My suggestions are to implement a little more thorough check prior to allowing a gun purchase. Criminals can buy guns one way or another through a variety of different methods including trade shows and private party transactions to get around certain rules. The loopholes need to be closed including private party sales. The background check needs to be a little more inclusive. I don't mind spending 10 more minutes in the transaction process if it helps keep guns from the wrong people. Gun crimes need to be treated much differently and more harshly. Even in situations where the gun wasn't used, but criminals who shouldn't have guns are found with guns need to have the book thrown at them.
Fewer guns is probably the right idea, but you can't impose a law that punishes lawful ownership.
On the other hand, if you get stopped and you show him both and let him know where your weapon is you may be thanked for being a good honest hardworking non delinquent taxpaying citizen and sent on your way. At least one person who I got to attend the CHL class I sponsored already had that happen.
My perspective is that if we limit the number of guns they can get access to (close "loopholes", if they have a felony on their record, they cannot buy one, and if we limit the number of guns in a house that they can rob), eventually the number of guns they have access to will diminish.
Have a prior record......get caught with a gun......25 years! No eligibility for early parole!
Would that work? would that put a dent in the crime rates?
ehh..? not always......
I agree the penalty for murder is usually severe....but its not enough. Look at all the shootings that happen that never result in a death. All the 7/11 robberies, home invasions, car jackings etc etc etc......while using a gun. I think if you make it a mandatory 25year or longer sentence instead of just 2 to 3 and 1 more on house arrest I think it would start to make a difference.
I say fill the prisons up! If they are not out on the street the crime rate cant do anything but go down.
No doubt some shootings will still happen.....you'll always have the ones that think they can get away with it........Im talking about taking the ones off the street that we DO catch and them keep them from becoming repeat offenders.
People want to fix the symptoms and ignore the disease that cause said symptoms.
Post a reply to: Good guy with a gun...hell yeah!