Basic gun laws

[micfranklin]

Okay since I'm here, I wanna know how everyone feels about gun control. Should there be more of it, less of it?

[lily]

Not sure what you mean, micfranklin. I'd like to see guns made so that children can't pick one up and shoot it, like a toy. I know that locks seem to be a hassle for gun owners, but come on! Some states do prosecute the parents if a child picks up and uses a gun, but by that time it's too late.

I'd also like to see mandatory gun classes.

[Cobra]

I think there should be some gun control but it should be limited. Like the background check for felonies before you can be sold a weapon, no machine guns just floating around strict rules to get those like we have now, ect.

[micfranklin]

I think there should be less gun control because if gun control gets stricter so that the government takes them away from you, then only criminals and cops will have weapons while good people are defenseless.

Plus guns dont kill people, people with guns do that.

[BoogyMan]

I believe in gun control, that is why I hold mine with both hands. :)

[firefox]

Boogyman you kick ASCII! A friend of mine has a shirt that says something like that, or at least he did in HS. Do you have any 30'06 and/or .308 rifle recomendations? I prefer bolt action but I would consider a semiauto or breech loader if there's a good reason. I've had some experience with firearms and know how to be safe with them, but I don't know enough to know which models are best for various tasks, etc.

[micfranklin]

I believe in gun control, that is why I hold mine with both hands. :)


You have no idea how many times I've heard that joke!:D

[micfranklin]

Any anti-gun folk here on this forum? Though I may be pro-gun, I'm interested to hear your reasons for this.

[Oedipus Rex]

I think there should be some gun control but it should be limited. Like the background check for felonies before you can be sold a weapon, no machine guns just floating around strict rules to get those like we have now, ect.


There's already seven classifications of FFLs. One even cover machine guns. I had an FFL several years ago. With it, I could go into any firearms dealer, buy a weapon, and walk out the door with it... same day. All I needed was an original signature on a copy of my FFL, to be left with the person/business I made my purchase from.

[firefox]

Not sure what you mean, micfranklin. I'd like to see guns made so that children can't pick one up and shoot it, like a toy. I know that locks seem to be a hassle for gun owners, but come on! Some states do prosecute the parents if a child picks up and uses a gun, but by that time it's too late.

I'd also like to see mandatory gun classes.


These things have been around for a long time and don't work very well. Also, it makes them useless in home defense situations, rapes, etc. The thing that needs to happen is that kids need to be trained in the proper use and storage of firearms. They need to be taught that guns are NOT toys but powerful and potentially deadly tools that should be respected. Most gun related deaths and injuries in the US are the result of accidents.

[Oedipus Rex]

Not sure what you mean, micfranklin. I'd like to see guns made so that children can't pick one up and shoot it, like a toy. I know that locks seem to be a hassle for gun owners, but come on! Some states do prosecute the parents if a child picks up and uses a gun, but by that time it's too late.

I'd also like to see mandatory gun classes.


These things have been around for a long time and don't work very well. Also, it makes them useless in home defense situations, rapes, etc. The thing that needs to happen is that kids need to be trained in the proper use and storage of firearms. They need to be taught that guns are NOT toys but powerful and potentially deadly tools that should be respected. Most gun related deaths and injuries in the US are the result of accidents.





I agree. Let's make better parents, not more complex guns.

[Nemo]

The Second Amendment provision for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is granted in the context of the maintenance of a “well regulated Militia.� The only thing the gun lobby represents is an unregulated band of fools - worse, fools with guns! If you feel that you need a gun to be safe, then you shall never be safe; and, likewise, if you feel that you need a gun to be free, then you shall never be free. For our freedoms are not guaranteed by force of arms, but rather by force of will of “We the People.�

[Cobra]

Â*For our freedoms are not guaranteed by force of arms, but rather by force of will of “We the People.â€�

You can't force your will into reality without force of arms to do it with. Will all you want but if there's an army standing between you and that will, and you aren't armed it ain't happening.

[Oedipus Rex]

The Second Amendment provision for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is granted in the context of the maintenance of a “well regulated Militia.� The only thing the gun lobby represents is an unregulated band of fools - worse, fools with guns! If you feel that you need a gun to be safe, then you shall never be safe; and, likewise, if you feel that you need a gun to be free, then you shall never be free. For our freedoms are not guaranteed by force of arms, but rather by force of will of “We the People.�




Really? And just where did you come up with that? I think you're wrong. I'll even go so far as to link a U.S. Dept of Justice website backing my POV. I hate to post something so long but to cut it down would do it an injustice.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2b

A. "The Right of the People"

The Second Amendment's recognition of a "right" that belongs to "the people" indicates a right of individuals. The word "right," standing by itself in the Constitution, is clear. Although in some contexts entities other than individuals are said to have "rights," (37) the Constitution itself does not use the word "right" in this manner. Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a "right" on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any "right" restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a "right of the people" discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures "right[s]" to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person's "right" to a jury trial in civil cases. (38) By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only "powers" or "authority." (39) It would be a marked anomaly if "right" in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.

In any event, any possible doubt vanishes when "right" is conjoined with "the people," as it is in the Second Amendment. Such a right belongs to individuals: The "people" are not a "State," nor are they identical with the "Militia." Indeed, the Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a "right" only to the "people." The phrase "the right of the people" appears two other times in the Bill of Rights, and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," and the Fourth safeguards "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to "rights . . . retained by the people." We see no reason to read the phrase in the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it plainly means in these neighboring and contemporaneous amendments.

The Supreme Court, in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, likewise has recognized that the Constitution uses "the people," and especially "the right of the people," to refer to individuals:

"[T]he people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. (40)

Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional scholar after the Civil War, took the same view in explaining "the people" in the context of the First Amendment: "When the term 'the people' is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the government through being clothed with the elective franchise. . . . But in all the enumerations and guaranties of rights the whole people are intended, because the rights of all are equal, and are meant to be equally protected." (41)

The Constitution confirms this meaning of "the people" as individuals by expressly distinguishing the "people" from the "States," using each word to refer to a distinct thing. Indeed, the Second Amendment itself refers separately to "the people" and the "State." And the difference is firmly established by the Tenth Amendment, which distinguishes between the powers reserved "to the States" and those reserved "to the people." The "people" are the individuals who compose the States, distinct from - and bearing their federal "rights" apart from - those entities. (42)

Similarly, the Constitution gives distinct meanings to "the people" and the "Militia." Again, the Second Amendment itself is a notable example, referring to the "well regulated Militia" but granting the "right" to "the people." The Constitution's other references to "rights" of "the people," noted above, cannot plausibly be construed as referring to the "Militia." In addition, when granting governmental power over the militia, the Constitution speaks of the militia expressly, without any reference to or suggestion of the broader "people." (43) And the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, which distinguishes between all "person[s]" and those serving in the army, navy, or "the Militia, when in actual service," indicates that where the Constitution addresses rights that turn on service in the militia it does so expressly.

The only truly "collective" use of the "the people" at the time of the Founding was to refer to the people as they existed apart from government or any service to it. The Declaration of Independence refers to "one People" dissolving their political bonds with another and forming their own nation, and "We the people" created the Constitution in ratifying conventions chosen "by the People" of each State. (44) Thus, even in this context, the "people" are distinguished from "the government" or "the State"; nor can the term plausibly be limited to the "Militia." And when "the people" appears in the phrase "the right of the people" in the Constitution, we conclude that it indicates a personal right of individuals, whether that be a right to assemble and petition, to be secure in one's person and property, or to keep and bear arms.

B. "To Keep and Bear Arms"

The "right of the people" that the Second Amendment secures is a right "to keep and bear Arms." As the previous subpart showed, those who hold the right are, according to the text, "the people" - individuals - not the government or even the militia. The phrase "to keep and bear Arms" is consistent with this conclusion: The phrase "keep . . . Arms" reinforces it, (45) and the phrase "bear Arms" is not inconsistent with it.

[Nemo]

That is not the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).Â*Â*There is nothing in the Second Amendment that would bar state regulation of the possession, transportation and sale of firearms.Â*Â*Keep in mind that our rights are defined by the law.Â*Â*Indeed, our rights exist only to the extent enforced by law, in the absence of which, we have no rights at all.Â*Â*The gun lobby has attempted to read into the Second Amendment provision that is not there.Â*Â*In this they do as much violence to the Constitution as those who would deny the people its protections.

[Oedipus Rex]

That is not the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). There is nothing in the Second Amendment that would bar state regulation of the possession, transportation and sale of firearms. Keep in mind that our rights are defined by the law. Indeed, our rights exist only to the extent enforced by law, in the absence of which, we have no rights at all. The gun lobby has attempted to read into the Second Amendment provision that is not there. In this they do as much violence to the Constitution as those who would deny the people its protections.


Actually, the Constitution has been accurately read in the link I posted above. The problem is that gun grabbing Liberals don't like what the 2nd says. They haven't the popular support to go and amend the BoRs so they opt for judicial activism instead. Go luck with that one.

[Nemo]

For a good summary of the legal landscape for the Second Amendment arguments see "Fact Sheet:Â*Â*The Second Amendment" at
http://www.csgv.org/document.cfm?documentID=205.

[Oedipus Rex]

For a good summary of the legal landscape for the Second Amendment arguments see "Fact Sheet: The Second Amendment" at
http://www.csgv.org/document.cfm?documentID=205.


Great! You cite an organization called the ''Coalition to Stop Gun Violence" as your source. Can you cite something that isn't a propaganda machine?

[Nemo]

Have you read the cases?

[Oedipus Rex]

Have you read the cases?


Why would I read the cases? The BoRs says I have the right to bear arms. I even gave yo a Dept of Justice link to back up my opinion. You gave me a propaganda link. How lame.

[micfranklin]

Not sure what you mean, micfranklin. I'd like to see guns made so that children can't pick one up and shoot it, like a toy. I know that locks seem to be a hassle for gun owners, but come on! Some states do prosecute the parents if a child picks up and uses a gun, but by that time it's too late.

I'd also like to see mandatory gun classes.


What I think should happen is for parents to lock up their guns in places where their children (young children) can't get to them, and that should lower fatalities. I'd also like to see laws go after criminals, and not guns, since criminals are the real problem.

[lily]

Not sure what you mean, micfranklin. I'd like to see guns made so that children can't pick one up and shoot it, like a toy. I know that locks seem to be a hassle for gun owners, but come on! Some states do prosecute the parents if a child picks up and uses a gun, but by that time it's too late.

I'd also like to see mandatory gun classes.


These things have been around for a long time and don't work very well. Also, it makes them useless in home defense situations, rapes, etc. The thing that needs to happen is that kids need to be trained in the proper use and storage of firearms. They need to be taught that guns are NOT toys but powerful and potentially deadly tools that should be respected. Most gun related deaths and injuries in the US are the result of accidents.





I agree. Let's make better parents, not more complex guns.


So, firefox and Rex......they can make childproof caps for medication, harmful cleaning supplies, and lighters but something as basic as some type of saftey lock on a gun that a child can't figure out, but an adult can is asking too much?

It's a nice rosey thought that parents should be more responsible, but it's not reality.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So, firefox and Rex......they can make childproof caps for medication


You mean like the ones I used to open for my grandmother when I was a child?

Lily, if you kept abreast of such issues you would know that tremendous effort has been put into making guns that are unfireable by others but available quickly to thier owners, primarily for the law enforcement market, and all have failed.


So the answer to your inquiry is that they can't make a "child proof cap" for a gun that doesn't disable the gun for the owner in an emergency.

[Oedipus Rex]

Not sure what you mean, micfranklin. I'd like to see guns made so that children can't pick one up and shoot it, like a toy. I know that locks seem to be a hassle for gun owners, but come on! Some states do prosecute the parents if a child picks up and uses a gun, but by that time it's too late.

I'd also like to see mandatory gun classes.


These things have been around for a long time and don't work very well. Also, it makes them useless in home defense situations, rapes, etc. The thing that needs to happen is that kids need to be trained in the proper use and storage of firearms. They need to be taught that guns are NOT toys but powerful and potentially deadly tools that should be respected. Most gun related deaths and injuries in the US are the result of accidents.





I agree. Let's make better parents, not more complex guns.


So, firefox and Rex......they can make childproof caps for medication, harmful cleaning supplies, and lighters but something as basic as some type of saftey lock on a gun that a child can't figure out, but an adult can is asking too much?

It's a nice rosey thought that parents should be more responsible, but it's not reality.


I use to open my grandmother's medication for her when I was a kid. But to your question... My weapons have gun locks and some are in gun vaults. Right now, my son is too young to learn about weapons. I intend to give him the same education about weapons as I learned as a child. I grew up with weapons behind nearly every door in the house. While I won't go that far, my child will know how to be responsible in the use of firearms.

[lily]

I use to open my grandmother's medication for her when I was a kid. But to your question... My weapons have gun locks and some are in gun vaults. Right now, my son is too young to learn about weapons. I intend to give him the same education about weapons as I learned as a child. I grew up with weapons behind nearly every door in the house. While I won't go that far, my child will know how to be responsible in the use of firearms.


Were you 2 or 3 at the time you were opening her medication? You say right now your son is too young to learn about guns and you keep them locked up. I applaud that and you are a responsible gun owner. You are not the one I am complaining about.Â*Â*Sorry, I've read too many stories about children picking up a gun and the accidents that go along with it. Cripes......they hardly make any toy guns anymore.Â*Â*If this can happen with toys and the other things I mentioned, there has to be some way that a gun can be made that will only let an adult fire it and still not be too hard to figure out for an adult to use it in time of an emergency.........I don't think that is too much to ask.

[Oedipus Rex]

I use to open my grandmother's medication for her when I was a kid. But to your question... My weapons have gun locks and some are in gun vaults. Right now, my son is too young to learn about weapons. I intend to give him the same education about weapons as I learned as a child. I grew up with weapons behind nearly every door in the house. While I won't go that far, my child will know how to be responsible in the use of firearms.


Were you 2 or 3 at the time you were opening her medication? You say right now your son is too young to learn about guns and you keep them locked up. I applaud that and you are a responsible gun owner. You are not the one I am complaining about. Sorry, I've read too many stories about children picking up a gun and the accidents that go along with it. Cripes......they hardly make any toy guns anymore. If this can happen with toys and the other things I mentioned, there has to be some way that a gun can be made that will only let an adult fire it and still not be too hard to figure out for an adult to use it in time of an emergency.........I don't think that is too much to ask.


I was about 4 when I would open my grandmother's meds.

Guns are tools. They are not evil, in and of themselves. Like most anything, guns can do harm. The problem is not the fact that it is a gun but rather the gun was misused or not controlled in a proper manner by the owner.

I tend to believe the most rabid gun grabbers and their supporters are afraid of guns like many folks are afraid of snakes. Its the fear of the unknown and the ignorance of a weapon that generates unfounded fear. If you don't like guns, by all means you shouldn't own them. You'd be more of a danger to everyone else than to yourself.

[lily]

Rex, I think you're misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I don't want to take anyone's gun away. I just want them to be "childproofed".

[Oedipus Rex]

Rex, I think you're misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I don't want to take anyone's gun away. I just want them to be "childproofed".


I do know what you're trying to say. I've been through this discussion many times before going on 17 years. There's not much you can add to the debate that I haven't heard before. I once held an FFL. I own a cnc machine shop and make parts for weapons on occasion. This whole discussion is old hat to me. The only reason why I even attempt to debate this anymore is not because I still have unanswered questions but rather I want to try to educate those who have heard half-truths or a misunderstanding of facts.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Rex, I think you're misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I don't want to take anyone's gun away. I just want them to be "childproofed".


That's the same thing, a gun you can't use is like no gun at all.

[Oedipus Rex]

Rex, I think you're misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I don't want to take anyone's gun away. I just want them to be "childproofed".


That's the same thing, a gun you can't use is like no gun at all.




It may as well be an expensive hammer.:D

[firefox]

Lily, you seem to feel that most people are bad and/or incompetent when it comes to raising children. How do you feel about your own parenting skills (if you are a parent) and that of your friends and associates? Do you think that they generally do a good job? I would wager that most people feel that "others are bad", yet feel that they and those they know are qualified for the most part. In this case, it would seem that most people ARE at least minimally competent. Excepsionalism and elitism is what grows government and divides the people.

[Nemo]

If you have not even read the cases cited in the article, then there is little point in discussing the issue. (Certainly, there would be no point in debating with someone who refuses to recognize the rulings of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, on the subject.) I am reminded of a conversation with a gentleman in a bar, who, during the course of discussing the Second Amendment, asserted flatly that he had a “God-given� right to own a gun. Prudence dictated that I not question what portion of the Scriptures he was relying upon for such “high� authority, as I was convinced that he would brook no argument on the subject.

[Oedipus Rex]

If you have not even read the cases cited in the article, then there is little point in discussing the issue. (Certainly, there would be no point in debating with someone who refuses to recognize the rulings of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, on the subject.) I am reminded of a conversation with a gentleman in a bar, who, during the course of discussing the Second Amendment, asserted flatly that he had a “God-given� right to own a gun. Prudence dictated that I not question what portion of the Scriptures he was relying upon for such “high� authority, as I was convinced that he would brook no argument on the subject.


I'm reasonably assured that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. I gave you the link that went to great depths defining the terms 'people' and 'militia'. If you won't accept how the Constitution was worded and the meaning therein, then I'm wasting my time with you. Your eyes, as well as your mind, are both closed.

[Nemo]

The Memorandum Opinion referenced in you previous post is not supported by the case law, including the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that are binding precedent; and, consequently, is not considered even persuasive authority on the subject.Â*Â*Unless the Supreme Court overturns Miller (which given the history of the case law seems unlikely), the opinion that the Second Amendment confers an individual right is of no legal effect.

[Oedipus Rex]

The Memorandum Opinion referenced in you previous post is not supported by the case law, including the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that are binding precedent; and, consequently, is not considered even persuasive authority on the subject. Unless the Supreme Court overturns Miller (which given the history of the case law seems unlikely), the opinion that the Second Amendment confers an individual right is of no legal effect.


It will take an amendment to effect the change to the Constitution. The SCOTUS cannot do that for you, sorry.

[Nemo]

No. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and its decisions are binding.

[micfranklin]

I wonder who that one person was who voted for "stricter gun control?"

[Nemo]

Professor Tribe once told me that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says.Â*Â*I thought he was joking at the time; but now, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, I have come to think that he was in earnest.

[Oedipus Rex]

Judicial activism is alive and well. At least we'll know who to round up during the next Civil War. :rolleyes:

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Prudence dictated that I not question what portion of the Scriptures he was relying upon for such “high� authority


“If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.�
Jesus

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Unless the Supreme Court overturns Miller (which given the history of the case law seems unlikely), the opinion that the Second Amendment confers an individual right is of no legal effect.


Miller vs US did not rule that the second was not an individual right. It rules that a sawed off shotgun had no use in a milita.

Scotus has never ruled on the individual right one way or the other.

[firefox]

No.Â*Â*The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and its decisions are binding.


...So said John Marshal, who was the CJ at the time, and a lawyer. A bit of a conflict of interest there don't you think? 8-)

Self-defense is a fundamental right, and we need more of it to shrink government!

[Nemo]

The Miller case did not hold that the Second Amendment granted an individual right to keep and bear arms.Â*Â*To the contrary, it held just the opposite.

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." [Emphasis Added] United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Most judicial interpretations are that the Second Amendment is a limitation on the power of Congress over states’ (not individual) rights.Â*Â*See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). However, the Miller decision opens the door to federal regulation of firearms as well, holding that objections that federal laws (e.g. National Fire Arms Act and the Harrison Narcotic Act) "usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable." Id., p. 174.

[micfranklin]

No.Â*Â*The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and its decisions are binding.


...So said John Marshal, who was the CJ at the time, and a lawyer. A bit of a conflict of interest there don't you think? 8-)

Self-defense is a fundamental right, and we need more of it to shrink government!


Exactly.

[Oedipus Rex]

Citing the same case the gun grabbers love to use...

http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html


For those of us who advocate the Second Amendment as an individual right rather than a collective guarantee, there are several considerations regarding the Miller decision. First is the fact that it was not an important decision in itself. It determined that the Second Amendment does not allow law-abiding citizens to legally own sawed-off shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches long. That is all. It is ironic that anti-gun factions are now beginning to avoid reference to United States v. Miller, their long-time "evidence" for banning "Saturday Night Specials", since by default it is acceptable to own weapons with a "reasonable relationship" to the preservation of the militia, and nothing so fits the description as those creatures of their own distorted imagination, the so-called "assault weapons"!

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The Miller case did not hold that the Second Amendment granted an individual right to keep and bear arms. To the contrary, it held just the opposite.


Not even a little. In fact Miller seemed to say an individual had a right to carry only military weapons, since the argument applied to the individual right was that it didn't exist in this case because the sawed off shotgun was not a military weapon.

[Nemo]

That is not correct. Here is a quote from United States v. Hale:

'Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second
Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons.
In Miller, the Court simply recognized this historical residue.
The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the
possession of a certain weapon has "some reasonable relationship to
the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," the
Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the
weapon.Â*Â*Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818.'Â*
United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992).

[micfranklin]

If it helps, does anyone here think the Brady Law was the biggest waste of time when it comes to guns?

[Oedipus Rex]

If it helps, does anyone here think the Brady Law was the biggest waste of time when it comes to guns?


Absolutely. It was an end game agenda driven by those who would have no problem with denying a person/general public the Constitutional rights. Socialism almost to the extreme of Communism in regards to civil rights.