I'll have to disagree. Those who plan to kill innocent victims, either due to mental illness, political motives, or pure evil are not likely to be deterred from getting a gun by any law. Guns save lives. Though seldom mentioned in the media, just having a gun is often enough to stop an attack, even when it's not used. Should pressure cookers be outlawed because of Boston? In the light of Vickie's comment above, I'm signing this with my full name.
Hey, Lynne, All opinions (when calmly expressed) are welcome here but I'll disagree with you.
I'm not in favor of banning guns -- I have a concealed carry permit (for which a background check and fingerprints were required) and a gun -- I AM in favor of a ban on the high capacity magazines and assault rifles. I also don't think civilians should be allowed to possess tanks, rocket launchers, flame throwers, grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear missiles.
Sure, a determined criminal can get most anything he wants -- just as anyone who wants to can drive a car 100 mph on the highway or backwards through a city -- that doesn't mean we ought to scrap all traffic laws.
A background check would, at the very least, make acquiring a weapon a little more difficult for an impulse buyer, as well as holding dealers responsible for sales to mentally unstable or criminal types.
It's my opinion that the NRA is a shill for the firearms industry and that their repeated warnings that 'Obama's coming for your guns' have resulted in huge profits for that industry -- profits that have allowed them to buy far too many Congressmen.
If, as polls have shown, almost 90% of the American people support background checks, I have to ask myself -- just who are those Congressmen who blocked a vote on background checks representing?
11 comments:
No balls, or brains, or hearts!
Obviously, Obama needs to be more dogged in his approach!
Nor do they have any common sense.
Sam
I think you need a better PR person. Way to alienate a portion of your readers!
Dear Anonymous -- I'll take that chance. Some things are too important to be quiet about. And, unlike you, I'll put my name to my opninons.
Just saying, dogs have more sense than those --- in the Senate!
Vicki, Dorcus and I loved the humor, but we loved the opinion even more. Thank you, and let's keep the sane voices coming. Jim
And that's why YOUR name is on the blog! If only our political leaders were as savvy as Willa!
Yes, and some of them don't have the sense God gave a billy goat. And that's insulting to the goat.
I'll have to disagree. Those who plan to kill innocent victims, either due to mental illness, political motives, or pure evil are not likely to be deterred from getting a gun by any law. Guns save lives. Though seldom mentioned in the media, just having a gun is often enough to stop an attack, even when it's not used. Should pressure cookers be outlawed because of Boston? In the light of Vickie's comment above, I'm signing this with my full name.
Lynne Williams, Douglasville, GA
Hey, Lynne, All opinions (when calmly expressed) are welcome here but I'll disagree with you.
I'm not in favor of banning guns -- I have a concealed carry permit (for which a background check and fingerprints were required) and a gun -- I AM in favor of a ban on the high capacity magazines and assault rifles. I also don't think civilians should be allowed to possess tanks, rocket launchers, flame throwers, grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear missiles.
Sure, a determined criminal can get most anything he wants -- just as anyone who wants to can drive a car 100 mph on the highway or backwards through a city -- that doesn't mean we ought to scrap all traffic laws.
A background check would, at the very least, make acquiring a weapon a little more difficult for an impulse buyer, as well as holding dealers responsible for sales to mentally unstable or criminal types.
It's my opinion that the NRA is a shill for the firearms industry and that their repeated warnings that 'Obama's coming for your guns' have resulted in huge profits for that industry -- profits that have allowed them to buy far too many Congressmen.
If, as polls have shown, almost 90% of the American people support background checks, I have to ask myself -- just who are those Congressmen who blocked a vote on background checks representing?
Post a Comment