Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Gun-and-Bible-and-constitution

I love when Republicans show some backbone, and here it happened in Missouri.

Gun-and-Bible-and-constitutionLast week, Missouri Democrats introduced an extreme gun-control bill that would force gun owners to either surrender or destroy their “assault weapons” within 90 days. If Missourians do not comply within this period of time, they would be charged with a Class C felony.

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced this bill that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms…guilty of a class D felony.”

People who want to take our guns deserve to be prosecuted, so “here here!” to Leara for protecting women, children, old people, and minorities.

 
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • http://www.facebook.com/Zipcarol Carol Ruszler

    Remembering that “assault weapons” has an indeterminate
    definition.

  • Tracy Lee Nash

    The

  • Tracy Lee Nash

    The problem is the term assualt weapons has a broad scope definition.

    Either way though, our consitutional right to bear arms shouldn’t be

    questioned. It is what this country was founded on and when one person(s)

    decides that they no longer like what the consitution represents and believes

    that because they have some power, can then re-write our country’s values

    based on what that person deems acceptable, this is when our country is no

    longer free. And why Obama is so wrong, wrong, wrong, for this country.

  • Errol Huffman

    Be it assault or otherwise a bullet is a bullet and rest assured I and many others can fire a weapon not classified as “assault” just as quickly. But the bigger issue is not “assault style” weapons – that just makes it sound scarier and more palatable to ban. The second amendment is not just the right to bear arms – as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court – nor is it simply to become part of a well-regulated government-sponsored militia. While defense of the homeland is in part the reason for the second amendment the founding fathers were concerned about oppressive government at home as well as from abroad. How can the people defend themselves against a totalitarian, oppressive, or otherwise unjust government if they do not possess weaponry powerful enough to stave off attacks by government-controlled troops? Have no doubt: IF the government reaches the tipping point there will be many military commanders and soldiers who will divorce themselves from the government and bring some of those assets to the public. And there are many legitimate purposes for owning AR-15s, AK-47s, etc.: ranching, big game, and personal protection in the defense of home, during looting, riots, and natural disasters. Just because one prefers NOT to own or ever fire a weapon or because one lives in a limited environment in which they cannot conceive of why others might need powerful or high-capacity weapons does not give them the right to dictate what others may or may not do. The issues are not related and someone is bound to attach the premise but I’ll make it anyway: there are many who are as militant about banning fossil fuel vehicles – let’s all ride bicycles. Well, that is not realistic when we look at parts of the country; in some places it makes sense to walk, bike, or use other forms of transportation. The point is that the parts of society that wish to ban vehicles has not yet found the heart-strings to pull on that issue as they have with weapons. Anyway, I have no issue with instant, criminal background checks. I do have concerns about mental health checks: I can see this abused to thwart ownership by former military who may suffer from PTSD. I can see subjective diagnoses perverted to prevent ownership of firearms. I do think strict enforcement of laws on the books will help. I think a federalized crime – mandatory ten years minimum – for use of a firearm in the commission of a criminal act will prevent recidivism and drop gun-related crimes. And we need better investigation of illegal gun trafficking and crack-downs on blighted, gang-infested urban centers, or anywhere the gangs may be.