What happens when a person with a gun is properly in place to stop a mass shooting?

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by corwin

Under federal law that is completely legal, and you make the most money yourself from the sale. I'm overly cautious and they few times I've sold guns I go back to a dealer to sell them, now that I've joined a gun club I can sell them to other members but I will still restrict sales to people with a valid CCW only, that's better than a NICS check and about as sure as you can be.

I don't mind that resales of private guns are done only between CHL holders only as a law either. As that doesn't infringe upon your right to bear arms.

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally Posted by monovillage

By making it expensive, time consuming and intrusive they make it less likely that honest and law-abiding citizens will make the commitment to exercise their rights. By the time you purchase a firearm and have jumped through the hoops you outline most people will have spent @ $1,000.

Yet so many Democrats will say that even a $5.00 drivers license is far too much of a restriction, if not outright suppression of their rights.

Because, oh I don't know, owning a car isn't like owning a gun?

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by MooseNSquirrel

Because, oh I don't know, owning a car isn't like owning a gun?

Read the whole thread Moosie.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by monovillage

By making it expensive, time consuming and intrusive they make it less likely that honest and law-abiding citizens will make the commitment to exercise their rights. By the time you purchase a firearm and have jumped through the hoops you outline most people will have spent @ $1,000.

Yet so many Democrats will say that even a $5.00 drivers license is far too much of a restriction, if not outright suppression of their rights.

You are talking about a poll tax which has historically been used to suppress the right to vote. If anything is sacred to us it should be the right to vote without infringement, its hard to comprehend there are still Americans who want to suppress other people's right to vote.

As far as gun control, we should get more realistic about how deadly guns are and require better on-going training for gun owners. We should also mandate improvements in gun design that improve safety, in the same manner we mandate seat-belts for autos.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by Tom

You are talking about a poll tax which has historically been used to suppress the right to vote. If anything is sacred to us it should be the right to vote without infringement, its hard to comprehend there are still Americans who want to suppress other people's right to vote.

As far as gun control, we should get more realistic about how deadly guns are and require better on-going training for gun owners. We should also mandate improvements in gun design that improve safety, in the same manner we mandate seat-belts for autos.

Again, you get off course. Owning and carrying a gun is a protected constitutional right, so is voting. Driving and owning a car aren't.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Again, you get off course. Owning and carrying a gun is a protected constitutional right, so is voting. Driving and owning a car aren't.

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, that's the law.

Regulation of guns is constitutional. That is also the law.

I'm not off course. You are in comparing a poll tax to gun regulation.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by Tom

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, that's the law.

Regulation of guns is constitutional. That is also the law.

I'm not off course. You are in comparing a poll tax to gun regulation.

Regulation of voting is also the law. You pretend that a poll tax is the only way the government can regulate voting, it's not.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Regulation of voting is also the law. You pretend that a poll tax is the only way the government can regulate voting, it's not.

I'm not pretending anything. You specifically said something about paying $5 to vote which is what I responded too.