Until they are convicted felons, they are still protected. If they were not at the time of the incident, they could potentially have been legally able to purchase guns and ammunition and in some situations could have done so without any sort of background check. THAT is part of what gun controls are about.
The verbage you have consistently been using in your posts has been discussing not limiting the type of guns or ammunition that are available for anyone to purchase. I have on more than one occasion attempted to put forth that gun control laws are not about taking away second amendment rights to own a gun. They are instead about any one or a number of measures such as limiting the type of guns that can be purchased, having background checks for every single purchase and removing loopholes for doing so, making sure that mentally ill persons whose mental illness could affect their use of guns in such a way as to harm others are not able to purchase them, etc. In other words to make it possible for responsible gun owners to continue to have them while protecting the safety of others.
Then I must not have been clear in my posts. I thought I previously discussed that I would be in favor of reinstating the assault weapons ban. I also don’t recall anywhere being against background checks to purchase firearms. Please correct me if I’m wrong about that.
And to quote from Men in Black: “And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.”
What I am against is the overreach of gun control legislation, such as a 10 round magazine limit would impose and make the majority of currently owned handguns illegal, or a complete ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons, and other extreme measures.
In the wake of Sandy Hook, where 20 children died,
Nation in a state of shock; Barack Obama cried.
(He was not the only one who's eyes had sprung a leak
I know that I wept non-stop for the entire week.)
We all swore we'd make a change to stop these killing sprees.
Think that anything will ever happen? Honey, please.
While the Newtown parents buried daughters and their sons,
People, in the thousands, ran right out to purchase guns.
Weapons sales went through the roof and bullets sold out quick.
Proof, to me, the culture that we live in's pretty sick.
NRA sounds rational when people are afraid.
How far has my own position on this issue strayed?
I've begun to think that arming teachers makes good sense.
Maybe build a moat, or else electrify a fence.
We now have so many guns we can't uncross the line.
There's a gun for everyone... I wonder who has mine.
I am not making light of the gun violence in this country; however, the rhetoric needs to come down a notch. It has become a war of soundbites even as the violence escalates. As my grandmother used to say, Common sense is is not common.
On that note, Chris Rock's take on Gun Control:
And here is his most recent comment on Gun Control:
Chris Rock has a suggestion for reducing gun violence: Limit gun ownership to people with mortgages.
"Every mass killer lives with his mother," said Rock. "It's never people who have their own place."
His suggestion would address the issue of personal history, Rock noted, "because every mortgage already comes with a real background check."
It would also have a pre-deterrent effect on potential perpetrators.
"If you go to jail for 30 years," said Rock, "you'd still have to pay that mortgage."
Rock made his suggestion at a TV critics panel for "Totally Biased," the W. Kamau Bell late-night talk show that Rock executive-produces.
Rock had a standup routine years ago in which he suggested guns should be given out free, but bullets should cost $5,000.
When the industry (and that pertains to any industry) does not self-regulate itself, and let's be honest about the fact that as long as so many people are making money hand over fist it will not happen, the only recourse that is left is legislation. Had the NRA, manufacturers, and gun sellers done more to help diminish the chances of the numerous mass murders of innocent victims from happening, I might (and that's a huge might) have some sympathy for them. They have, however, been allowed pretty much carte blanche to sell weapons and ammunition that go far beyond what most people need in order to defend themselves or for hunting purposes. They further their ends by perpetuating a culture that instead of finding reasonable ways of dealing with conflicts, mental illness, and ways to prevent situations from escalating to physical violence is told that it must arm itself against "them." And then they hide behind the second amendment and rail against the government How dare the government take away our rights?! Indeed! And what about the rights of those of us who do not want a world where we are fed the preposterous notion that we must arm ourselves in order to live in safety because nothing else can be done? Or to give up trying to find reasonable solutions because the issues are "too complex?" Talk about your dumbing down of America.
...I understand "sin tax" and the like...and re-reread what I said-"ridiculous" taxes...50% tax on ammo is outlandish in my opinion...that's all I'm saying...so gun owners should not feel singled out and oppressed by such maneuvers,
I realize gun control is a very toxic issue right now.
Approximately 62 million American’s own guns. In the past couple of years I can recall 3 people horribly abusing the “Right” we all experience under the second amendment (and I don’t believe the last one was legally allowed to own guns). And it is “RIGHT” under our constitution (an inalienable human right according to our constitution, as essential to the life of liberty as the right to free speech). Also, at the heart of every one of those 3 attacks there appears to have been problematic social and/or psychological issues. Why then not focus on the cause rather than the tool they used to commit the act? Guns are only tools, and it’s how they are used that’s the problem. Yes we keep hearing “all matters” will be taken into consideration about the topic at hand, but let’s be honest… the vast majority of the discussion has only been on gun control. The worst mass killings in US history have involved bombs and fire, but I suppose the actual number of deaths means less than the method of their deaths. Bottom line, the number of killings by guns is miniscule, compared to the number of firearms in the hands of our citizens. Can you say the same for alcohol or automobile deaths?
How many deaths are caused annually by alcohol abuse, by automobiles? Far far more than by guns. Do we demand limiting alcohol to 1%... where you would need vast quantities to get a buzz, or putting limiting devises on cars so they can’t go over 35 MPH? Doing so wouldn’t restrict the ability, or so-called “right,” to purchase alcohol or drive automobiles. Or are we okay with them because trying to find solutions to the issues are "too complex?"
Mark Levin, probably one of the best constitutional lawyers IMO, had an excellent piece on what is really happening (picking out the best sections):
No discussion on the news programs about an imperial president exercising an authority he does not have under our constitution. Nothing. No discussion about all the lives saved and all the people protected as a result of the Second Amendment. Nothing. They continue to perpetuate the lie, the big lie that somehow, some new regulation, some new government fiat would have prevented what happened in Newtown, Connecticut. And then they pretend that they're for law enforcement. They pretend that they're hard on crime when they're not.
We have evidence over one decade after another of how the very same people pushing for gun control against law-abiding American citizens support radical left-wing judges who are soft on criminals, support weakened sentencing rules, decriminalizing this and that. Since when was Obama strong on fighting crime? Since when has Obama supported law enforcement? But here he is, you know, 'we have to stop gun violence.' No, we have to stop violent criminals.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...s_country.htmlAnyway, so they may do by executive fiat -- I'm trying to read between the lines -- a national gun database. Now, why would we need a national gun database? Well, listen, we need to know who has the weapons, at all times, and how many weapons they have and what weapons they have. How come? Why? The guy that killed all those people in Newtown, Connecticut, we know who he was and we know who had the weapons, his mother. So what does this national database have to do with anything? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oh, okay, but we need one anyway, right? To prevent what exactly? To prevent what?
Dealing with the mental health issues is absolutely a factor but although the saying guns don't kill people may be partially true, it is people with guns who are killing people. And it is still only one part of the entire issue. The current discussions on gun control are not focusing on just the guns but the entire picture. And there will still be guns available for people to have to defend themselves but there should absolutely at least be restrictions, if not outright bans, IMO on the types of guns and ammunition that enable shooters to so easily wound or kill victims in the numbers that have been occurring.