Certainly you can. The Nazis did it. They burned books and artwork that they deemed "deviant" or "criminal". They imprisoned or killed those people who they deemed "deviant" or "criminal". They also took away the guns of law-abiding citizens. The liberals in this country would love to regulate what they consider "deviant" (owning guns, believing in freedom, the Constitution, limited government, lower taxes) and they will do whatever they can (short of killing people, I presume) to get what they want. Obama has already made it legal to imprison American citizens indefinitely without legal counsel under the NDAA. Liberals are the closest thing we have to Nazis in the 21st century. View attachment 2008
Cjay what they passed in CA should be identical to what passed where you live. However the state went a step further by defining what constitutes a safe zone. I don't agree with the law that effects you any more than you do. The town I live in is so small that had they not redefined the law, nobody could have a gun.
I probably live in the most gun friendly state, actually Guns & Ammo ranked AZ #1 best state for gun owners. We still have gun free zones as I think that's federal. You guys mention the schools and I wonder if you have drug free zone signs as well. Out here the penalty is much more severe if drugs are sold or possessed in these zones. I live in Maricopa County.....Sheriff Joe land.......he has stated that he will not allow enforcement of gun laws if they violate the 2ndA including arresting any federal or other official who attempts to enforce such a law. Just a point for you all to argue about ;-)
Anyways these "gun free zones" are where all the mass killings take place aren't they? What law would change that? I know someone will bring up the Tucson Giffords shooting that was NOT in a gun free zone.....it was stopped by a concealed carry permit holding citizen.
I see carry permits more or less as another cop on the street. Once you have one, it is your obligation to get the training and remain proficient in handling a gun. Even if it means exceeding the carry permit requirements. Let loose a round and you are both legally and morally responsible for it's flight path no matter what the circumstances may be. In my state they are currently arguing whether or not to still allow locked firearms in cars on school property. If the 1000 foot rule is federal, local officials are not interested in enforcing it. This is where the problem lies, the number of laws and various levels of government make a convoluted landscape. It is coming to the point where it doesn't matter who you are or what you do, a clever enough prosecutor will find something to convict you on. Accused of one crime, and we will find seven laws to prosecute on hoping one or more will stick. There is selective prosecution, some laws are so old and not enforced that most folk wouldn't think it's really a crime until someone get the book thrown at them, just as an example. As far as school shooting goes, there is a new tactic being discussed in law enforcement circles. No more trying to secure the scene and waiting on SWAT to arrive. First officer to arrive is to go in and engage the shooter. Usual response time for the first officer on the scene has been under 3 minutes. The theory is that action at that time greatly reduce fatalities.
That's the point, they won't, but other steps, such as limiting the avaiability on massive clips just may, as the people who commit these kinds of massacres will find it increasingly more difficult to find them on the black market. As a result, less mass-murder-sprees will occur. That may take a while though, as there will always be people who will keep their (now) illegal clips, and some of those will be found by these insane bastards to use in shooting sprees. In other words: it will slow the homocidal bastards down, and the price is that law-abiding citizens forego the need to own such clips. As fun as they are, they are not necessary for any reasonable reason, such as hunting or target shooting, but they work real damn well at mowing down random people, when in the hands of a madman.
Ahem.....I see defending myself and my family against multiple gang banging druggies a reasonable reason. I don't know where you live but I live in one of most dangerous drug corridors in the nation. The kidnap home invasion capitol of the USA.
I know large capacity magazines (not 'clips', btw) are 'uber scary' but it really isn't that time consuming or challenging to change magazines while shooting...if there isn't a carry person there, anyway.
Why not just arm children from per-school through high school? That way they can do away with gun free school zones and if one goes nuts there will be a thousand more there to gun him down. I mean, why not? Sound rediculous? No more so than most of the other stuff I've read here, and I'm sure the right would wholeheartedly jump upon the idea as constitutionally justified and a smart move. I say why the hell not. After all, my kids are out of school now so what do I care.
Why not some of the teachers. My high school had 2 youth guidance officers assigned there full time. I doubt if they were unarmed. Here's a simple fact, historically, more student were killed each year playing football than in school shootings. I say we need football free school zones. * Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period. From a 2004 report. You'll hate the link...... http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Cmon Guy your frusrration is showing. You have to be 18 to own a rifle and 21 a handgun. We protect our money with guns ( armored cars, banks etc ) but not our kids? Really?
And we pay to protect some of our politicians with guns too. We had multiple security guards at the high school I went to. Of course, that was the 80ies when there were a lot more gun homicides and gun crime per year than there has been in the more recent past.
Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, Bloomberg, Gregory, et al all think only THEY are important enough for armed security. You think Pelosi and Reid travel anywhere without an armed entourage? Movie stars, talking heads? Guns should only be available to protect THEM! Liberal hypocrisy at its best.
Why won't the dimocrats focus their anti-violence campaign on the criminals instead of the law-abiding gun owners? Why do they want t heir fight to be with folks who are following the law & acting responsible? Why not take the fight to the people who aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing? Doesn't really seem that difficult, does it?
The unber-left is all about look and feel which plays into their self image. Put a smilie face or unicorn sticker on a high capacity mag and they don't have a problem with it. Stencil "This machine protects babies and kittens" on the side of an AK47 and they will shoulder one just as a fashion statement. It is no mistake these days that people ask "How do you feel about something" and not what you think. Their concept of guns are mostly based in Hollywood fantasies where one bullet will blow-up an entire building and every gun owner is a homicidal manic ready to go on a rampage. This is why deer rifles all of a sudden became sniper rifles. Reason doesn't play into the equation.
Caught in a felony using a gun/rifle etc automatic death penalty with no appeal allowed, regardless of if the weapon is used or not.
