Good luck with that... Try taking a bunch of paranoid schizo's guns away.. hahahaha
First off, appearantly you're a moron. Remember what I do for a living. I have taken guns from crazy people. I've entered many a situation where I've had someone that was "crazy" that had a gun, had to deal with them and take it away from them.'
So please don't talk to me about that scenario, unless you've been there.
I've been there and I still support the Second Amenedment of the U.S. Constution.
So you think people just want guns cause they're afraid someone will tell them they can't have guns, or else?
Makes no sense to me.. Why the sudden surge then? If they wanted em, they would already have them..
Handguns are made for killing, aint no good for nothing else ~ Lynard Skynard
Second. Yes. The same thing happened in 1994 right before the assault weapons ban, and amazingly their instincts were right too.
In the past, Barack Obama has supported legislation to ban all semi-sutomatic firearms, supported the now deemed unconstitutional D.C. gun ban, and wanted to limit the manufactuare, possession and purchasing of firearms.
Amazing how Obama ran on a pro second amendment platform but this is his history. The only time he voted pro gun was to vote for allowing retired police officers in Illinois to carry concealed, and that was only because he needed the support of the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police Union) at the time.
Joe Biden said he could have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre if the assault weapons ban didn't expire, if they closed the supposed "gun show' loophole and passed his "armor piercing bullet" legislation, and focused on mental illness that would have allowed faculty to exclude the subject from campus pending mental evaluations or get guns if deemed to have mental issues.
Let's take Biden's BS one by one.
First, the offender at VT didn't use a single gun that the assault weapons ban would have covered.
Second, he bought the guns at the same kinds of gun stores that Biden said he wouldn't have been able to buy one if the gun show "loophole" was closed.
Third, none of the bullets used were actual armor piercing bullets. The bullets Biden wanted to classify as armor piercing, are norman hunting and personal defense rounds. Nothing exotic or exceptional.
Lastly, is a mixed bag. The mental health thing is something that could be addressed if faculty, university and pollicy, but the denying of the purchase of a firearm by someone who has been in a mental institution currently can't be checked. Thanks to the Liberals and the HIPPA law, enacted by the same liberals who want to know why a person who has a history of mental health got a gun, there is no way for law enforcement to check this in most states and for the most part not across state lines. It's a bunch of BS and a reason to take guns away. The liberals won't allow law enforcement to keep track of who has been in a mental institution, so they can accurately assess who should have a gun permit, but want firearms to be registered and tracked so that they can know what firearms all the normal people have.
Ask yourself, which one is more invasive, and more of a violation of rights. The one that could protect the population, or the one that is nothing but a move toward "Big Brother"?
Don't worry though. Shortly after they take over and suppress the Second Amendment, they plan on suppressing the First Amendment, just as they already did in the campaign. When someone questioned them they were blackballed, when it seemed the election was in hand, they kicked all the pro-McCain reporters off their plane, supposedly for "space" reasons, but they were replaced with more than twice the number of people that were removed.
They will go after, and try to implement the "Fairness Doctrine" which is acutally nothing but the "Censorship Doctrine" and there are already, Obamamanicas that are defending this censorship by saying it's the same as President Lincoln did during the Civil War, to suppress reporting.
The censorship doctrine only suppresses the opposition, not those in favor. How is that not a violation of the First Amendment?
.
.
.