They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[Tim01]

President Obamas agenda, from his website.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
Agenda, crime and law enforcement,

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[villager]

1. Those sickos support making guns in this country childproof!? Thank God you posted this outrage!

n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Childproof

Why would you want a weapon of war to be childproof? It should never come into a child's possession at all, that's your childproofing.

Hey, let's childproof the F-22 raptor huh? Man, how screwed would we be if some kid found one of those lying around somewhere.

[villager]

5. Lethal weapons should be *as easy to use as possible*! You've convinced me!

And a few kids accidentally killing themselves, or each other, is small price to pay for the NRA's interpretation of our beloved freedoms!

[MercutioATC]

6. Depends on how they plan to make them "childproof"...

I have yet to see a plan that doesn't make the gun essentially unusable.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. The NRA has invested heavily in

encouraging people to use safe storage, as well as the Eddie Eagle program, and other tools to help children know what to do (more specifically, what NOT to do) if they encounter a firearm, and to help adults be aware what they can do to better restrict access by children.

The NRA is not your enemy on this topic. In fact, the NRA has supported things like mandatory trigger locks. (something I will not use, but whatever, I guess they are trying to help)

[villager]

14. I dunno, Atheist. I wish you put a little less faith in the NRA, frankly...

...because I see them strictly as industry lobbyists, whose main function is to spread "product" as far and wide as possible...

And just like cigarette companies who have to put on the appearance of not wanting kids to smoke, etc., they don't really care about child safety -- but even they have some kind of residual sense of basic industry lobbyist "PR."

And what the hell is wrong with Childproofing guns, anyway? Specifically?

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Lots of things.

Most of the schemes for 'childproofing' guns revolve around electronic means, which add many failure points to the weapon, should you actually need it. Some are mechanical, such as requiring a 12lb trigger pull, or other scheme to prevent a childs hand from being physically able to pull the trigger. Such efforts will ruin the accuracy of most weapons. I have yet to see a physical means of making a gun unusable to a child, that I would even consider installing on any of my firearms. If the weapon has fallen into a child's hands, you are already completely negligent.

I DO support mandating safe storage in some manner, most likely through strong penalties if a child comes into possession of one of an adults firearms. Leave it up to the owner if they want to store them in a safe, or dissasembled, or with trigger locks, etc, but have them know that any deaths resulting from negligent storage of firearms will be punished with jail time. I'd strongly support that.

As to the NRA, I'm not a member, and I really am not a fan of the political action wing of the NRA, the NRA-ILA. The NRA itself isn't actually a political entity at all, and just promotes things within it's actual mandate, like the Civilian Marksmanship Program, Eddie Eagle, Hunter Safety Education, and all that. The larger portion of the NRA is a-political. At least, that's my impression.

[Endangered Specie]

49. In NC, it is a crime to leave a gun in a place that a minor could access and discharge.

thats not the exact wording, but its required to be displayed in every gun shop in this state.

[Taitertots]

26. I guess that makes your opinion wrong

The NRA is what would happen if smokers formed a private organization with 4 million people to stop legislation limiting access to cigarettes.

The NRA protects children with its many programs designed to teach children and parents how to live safely with firearms. They supplied me with free gun locks for all my guns. They advocated the background check system we have. They advocate gun safes and safe gun handling techniques.

What is wrong with "child proofing" guns?
It is prohibitively expensive. It essentially doesn't even exist yet. Proper gun handling and storage do exactly what "childproof" guns do.

So you have evidence that NRA money comes from the gun industry as opposed to the 4 million paying members.

[spag68]

10. childproof

Yes, that is useless nonsense, kids never get into anything in the house they are not supposed to! No kids that I know of ever got into pops stash of pills or booze.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. It's. A. Weapon.

How do you make a sword safe for a child? You restrict access. How do you make a gas powered chain saw safe for a child? You restrict access.

My parents taught my brother and I not to mess around with the firearms around the house, and they were careful to restrict access and that was that. Never was a problem. Accidental death and injury with firearms has been trending down since the 70's.

You want rebates for gun safes, maybe put some money into programs that send cops in to talk to kids about leaving guns the hell alone, etc, whatever, fine. I'll help pay for that. But there's absolutely no way I would ever make any mechanical change to any of my guns that is intended to make it not fire under any circumstances wherein a human hand picks up the weapon, turns off the safety, and pulls the trigger.

The point of a gun is to WORK. Children should never have unsupervised access.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. More idealistic pie-in-the-sky idiotic nonsense

Yeah, keep guns away from the criminals.

Fucking hell.

And childproof guns? What the fucking hell does that mean?

Why do people actually think that anything that's called "childproof" is actually fucking childproof? I have seen nothing that a child can't get into.

[safeinOhio]

7. My trigger locks work well.

[Statistical]

25. Trigger locks are good however....

Heller specifically concluded that mandatory locks are unconstitutional because they prevent a legitimate use (defense of the home).

While I believe in safe storage I find a quick open safe to be a better design than a lock on trigger.

Any childproof system that violates Heller would be unconstitutional.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. This has been the case since about a week after Obama took office.

There's nothing new here. Why did you post this? There have been several discussions about it in this folder already.

[Tim01]

8. Because I am still having people tell me is simply not true. Seriously.

And not just on this board.

[DonP]

17. Learn the new "GrabberSpeak" - In their world banning isn't the same as "taking"

Seriously, I've been reading posts for a week or more from people that are irate that anyone would be "stupid" enough to think that wanting to institute and make permanent a ban on one or another specific type of gun isn't "taking anything away". So calling for a permanent AWB isn't taking anything from anybody... technically anyway.

Besides, in their world they have decided that you don't really "need it" so banning pretty much all semi auto rifles is OK.

I'm waiting to see if the line at Camp Perry is all Springfield '03's later this summer since even the M-1 Garand is on the AWB list according to HR1022.

At least until they call for a ban on those high powered long range sniper rifles.

[depakid]

9. Well, let's hope so

The previous law ought to have been expanded- not sunsetted out.

[MercutioATC]

13. Just for clarification...what firearms do you want to have banned?

All guns? All semiautomatic?

"Expanded" how?

[slackmaster]

15. "Expanded" = more voters adversely affected

How far would you expand it?

[pegdraggin]

18. NO. Wrong. Fail.

As with most anti-gun legislation, laws only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. They do nothing to curb the criminal.

The AWB is no different in this regard.

If you're too blind to realize this fact by looking inside our own borders, then look outside them for a bit. Look at the problems in Mexico right now... where private ownership of firearms is illegal. The thugs there don't seem to have a problem getting guns. Unfortunately, the citizens do, which has allowed the cartels to essentially take over entire populations because their power can't be held in check. And don't even start with it being 'our fault' the guns are there... most of the military weaponry they show on the news is coming from sources outside our nation.

Even if you buy into the lie that we're to blame, that's not the point. What is the point is that criminals can and will get guns. What is the point is that as Americans we have the consitutional right to keep and bear arms. And what is the point is that this right is effectively nuetered if the only guns we're allowed to keep are those not suited to defense.

The former AWB was not only pointless, but unconstitutional.

It was pointless in that it defined 'assault weapons' by characteristics which had nothing to do with their capacity to do harm. Pistol grips, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, and heat guards were all used to define and limit such weapons. But none of these characteristics had any meaning from a tactical standpoint. As anyone who's even remotely familiar with firearms knows... heat shields are basically nothing more than a cosmetic accessory. Collapsible stocks are only good for storeage (shoooting 'from the hip' is not taught in the military because your chances of hitting anything like this are slim to none). Pistol grips bring nothing to the table except a different way to hold your weapon. And flash hiders - well - they only reduce muzzle flash... a consideration on a battlefield, but a non-issue on the street.

Basically - you could take a weapon lacking all of the aforementioned characteristics and cause as much damage, if not more, as one incorporating all of them.

About the only portion of the ban that did impact the use of the weapon was magazine capacity. Unfortunately, this is where the criminals really gain an edge.

If I'm going to use a weapon defensively, more than likely, I'm going to be pretty much limited to the ammunition that's in the weapon at the time. As the one having to react at a moment's notice to crime, I'm already at a severe disadvantage. The criminals, on the other hand, don't have this problem. They can bring as many magazines (or multiple weapons) to the party as they please. More than likely, there will be more than one attacker. It's obvious that if a magazine capacity restriction is going to hurt anyone... it's going to be me... the law abiding citizen. It doesn't hurt the criminal. And that's assuming the law would have prevented them from finding hi-cap magazines (which, of course, it wouldn't). If you look at any of the horrific events that get the gun-control nuts all worked up... Columbine, the recent shooting at the immigration center, etc... the criminals had the opportunity to take their time, reload as they pleased... and keep on killing. High-capacity magazines made no difference whatsoever.

The former AWB ban was repealed because people realized - as FBI statistics proved - that it didn't impact crime in any significant manner. It looked good on the surface if you didn't think about it too deeply (which the writers of the bill obviously didn't do). But good feelings don't equate to positive results.

I own 'assault weapons' (which is a ludicrous term) because I A) enjoy shooting, B) depend on firearms to protect my family as per my constitutionally-guarantee right, and C) have every right to be armed with a weapon at least close to that which may be brought to bear against me by the scumbags in the world.

All you should have to do is look at California. Concealed carry is virtually impossible. Their state AWB is more stringent than the federal AWB ever was, magazine capacity is limited... and gun-related deaths remain out of control.

Banning guns isn't the answer. Banning effective guns isn't the answer. All you're doing is handing over the law abiding citizen to the criminals on a platter. If some of you don't want to use a gun to defend yourself & your family, fine. That's your choise. But don't you dare limit my ability to protect my own.

[depakid]

19. What's FAIL is sorry rationalizations for the obvious state of affairs in America

and the pathetic efforts to hide behind 2d Amendment absolutism.

I know that there are those who never stop denying that gun proliferation- and especially certain sorts of weapons, are the major problem- no matter what occurs- but hopefully, at some point, the rest of the folks will finally come to have had enough. What that will take, is anybody's guess.

[pegdraggin]

21. You don't understand the constitution

2nd ammendment 'absolutism'.

First off, the Heller case has solidified what most 2nd ammendment proponents have known since the dawn of our nation... that WE, the citizens, have the right to keep and bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed.

It's in the consitution, and has been interpreted as such by the Supreme Court of the United States.

That makes it pretty much indisputable. Unless you disagree with our constitution. In that case, I suggest you either find another place to live, or start up one heck of a petition campaign.

Second - you are exactly the type of person who I referred to above. You want to classify 'these types of weapons' as evil, bad, & dangerous. But you don't have any good reason to say so. You're obviously not a firearms enthusiast, because if you were, you'd side with most of the democratic gun lovers who have the experience to know just how silly the AWB was at its core.

Personally - when it comes to subjects I have little knowledge of - I prefer to learn something of them before forming an opinion.

But - it sounds like you don't want us to have guns for defense at all... regardless of 'style'. To you, I say... how dare you impact my ability to protect the ones I love! Be a sheep on your own time. If you want to rely on a butterknife when your wife's being raped or your children held hostage, be my guest. That's your choice. Not your choice to make for me.

[depakid]

24. I've read the opinions in the Heller case

and many more with the background to understand the arguments and how they apply- which you apparently have not. Instead, you rely on shallow (and unlearned) rhetoric- and from what is easy to see, one of the prime motivations for that is FEAR- an emotional reaction that short circuits your reasoning process.

If you were to look at the matter with rational risk assessment- or constitutional law in mind (or with the slighetst bit of concern for other members of society that gun proliferation adversely impacts) you might come to differing conclusions. Indeed, it's probably that would would- such is the extent of the evidence.

FACT is the owning firearms for the "reasons" you intimate (this is particularly true with high capacity semi-automatics with firepower far beyond what anyone would need) markedly increases YOU and YOUR FAMILY's (and by extention through your absolutism- others and their families) likelihood of being involved in a tragedy. That's simply a matter of objective science- that's been shown repeatedly.

Of course, people who are emotionally involved- be it with vaccination- or bizarre deals, aren't likely to listen- which why we need both educational programs and laws to regulate and encourage reasonable conduct.

[pegdraggin]

27. I'm not a statistic

And neither is my family.

Unlike people like yourself, who are frightened of the big bad guns, we all know how to safely handle our firearms, how to safely store our firearms, and how to safely use our firearms.

You cite statistics. Statistics are meaningless on a personal level.

Statistics say I'm more likely to die of a car accident than a female, but I drive with my big head and not my little one, so those statistics don't apply to me. Statistics say that since I was raised in a low-income neighborhood, I have a higher chance of turning out to be a criminal. But I took the proper course, and so those statistics don't apply to me.

Back in a time before you were likely born, when you could order a rifle from Sears, and marksmanship was a part of 4H and other youth organizations, you never heard about all these gun deaths. The accidental deaths you hear of now are caused by ignorance and lack of familiarity. If our society was as gun-tolerant now as it was a few decades ago, you wouldn't be hearing of all these accidental deaths.

Anyone familiar with the practices of firearms safety shouldn't have a fatal accident. Firearms safety is redundant in nature.

If Joe Blow down the street blows his head off because he chose to ignore the rules of firearms safety, that's his problem, not mine.

Likewise, if I happen to ignore the rules of lawnmower safety and cut my front lawn without wearing shoes, when I end up chopping my toes off, I'll still support your right to own a lawnmower. Not try to take it away from you because I was a dumb ass.

As far as being 'unlearned', you assume quite a bit kid. I'm ex military, college educated, and self-employed. And I'm an accomplished marksman. I owned my first shotgun at age 8. I've NEVER had a firearm accident. NEVER killed or harmed an innocent person with a firearm. I'm friends with plenty of people exactly like me, and they're friends with countless others all the same. No... you are the one who's unlearned, pretending to speak on a topic you know NOTHING about. And it's sickeningly obvious.

You keep kidding yourself thinking you're intellectually superior. From my seat, it doesn't look like you're even capable of an original thought. If you're not Michael Moore, you might as well be his parot. All your arguments are essentially 'Bowling for Columbine' paraphrased.

So tell me, since you're so well-learned on this subject... what kind of experience do you have with firearms?

As for the fear argument, if you think acquiring the tools necessary to defend my family from the potential of crime is fearful, you're a tool. Are you saying that crime doesn't exist? That the nightly news is made up? Or should I just trust statistics and HOPE I'm not one of the unlucky few who get killed, mugged, maimed, raped, or worse?

Again - I was born & raised in the real world, and still live there. I don't know where your shangri-la is, but here on earth, 5 out of every 6 people in the U.S. will face a violent crime, or violent crime attempt, at least once in their life (figured I'd point that out, since you're so in love of statistics).

[depakid]

28. That's what most everyone thinks

and a significant -and substantial, number of them turn out to be wrong. That's the take home lesson from the research.

I say most everyone, because of course as we know there are a few who take advantage of proliferation and the lack of responsible regulations to purchase (or otherwise acquire) various sorts of firearms with the general or specific intent to do harm to themselves or others.

One way to reduce the number of folks acquiring guns with malicious intent is to take away the element of impulse through waiting times (and I don't reckon 3 days is nearly enough. 4 weeks would be more effective). Unfortunately, those too are opposed by absolutists.

[pegdraggin]

29. You prove once again you don't think things through

"and a significant -and substantial, number of them turn out to be wrong. That's the take home lesson from the research."

No, the take-home research is 1) It's my constitutional right to own firearms for defense, 2) It's my responsibility as a gunowner to learn how to safely own and use my firearm, 3) If our country was once again a country of riflemen/women, with our children raised on responsible firearms practices, you wouldn't see the shit you see today, and 4) If you hurt yourself and others with a gun (or car, or lawnmower, or baseball bat, or stapler, or broom), you bear the responsibility of your actions... not the whole of society.

"I say most everyone, because of course as we know there are a few who take advantage of proliferation and the lack of responsible regulations to purchase (or otherwise acquire) various sorts of firearms with the general or specific intent to do harm to themselves or others."

If I want to kill myself, I can overdose on drugs, drown myself, hang myself, slit my wrists, jump off a building, and yeah... shoot myself. Of all the options, shooting myself is likely going to be last on the list.

I I want to kill someone (and get away with it), walking into a gun store, providing a valid photo ID, filling out an ATF form, and awaiting a response from NICS is probably not going to be very wise.

"One way to reduce the number of folks acquiring guns with malicious intent is to take away the element of impulse through waiting times (and I don't reckon 3 days is nearly enough. 4 weeks would be more effective). Unfortunately, those too are opposed by absolutists."

This is a great example of people who push gun-control legislation without any regards for its effectiveness. Do a little research on your own and you'll find out that wait times have proven to be virtually worthless in preventing crime. Why? Because criminals don't buy their guns at the gunstore! That's why many states have opted out of a waiting period. It has no teeth.

[depakid]

30. It's society's responsibility to put limits on your behavior

for your own good- and for everyone elses. Part of that old enlightenment deal called the social contract.

That's why libertarians are roundly considered to be kooks (maybe less so in America than in other nations) - because they have a childish need to be able to "do whatever they want" regardless of the consequences to themselves and to others- and to society at large.

And like children, they'll come up with an immense amount of sophistry, rationalization and ridiculous analogies to support their protests as to why they ought to be allowed to do ____________.

[pegdraggin]

31. We can go round and round on this

But the bottom line is

THE SECOND AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, AND THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This right has been upheld buy Heller vs SCOTUS. There is no room for ambiguity. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

When you and your social-contract cronies manage to ammend the constitution to read differently, then we'll talk. Until then, STFU.

You know nothing of America, its principles, the founding fathers, or what they envisioned for our nation. You're worthless and weak. You don't have the balls to protect those you love, but you have the audacity to try and take away the rights of others. I can pretty much guarantee you've never served our nation in a military capacity. But yet you care about what's best for the nation? No you don't. All you care about is trying to make the world around you safer without the risk of ever having to put your neck on the line and defend what's yours. The problem with your candy-coated dreamland is that it will never work. There always has been violence, always will be violence, and no amount of legislation will change that.

I'm done with you. You're pathetic.

[depakid]

32. If you had any knowledge of constitutional jurisprudence

(or American history- or of other nations, for that matter)- you'd get that you lack clue one as to what you're talking about.

You'd also realize that- in fact, your rantings are exactly like those of child failing to accept being told by an adult that he or she shoudn't have _________ or do _________, because ___________.

Sad- and all too prevalent these days.

[pegdraggin]

33. So you're the adult?

And I'm the child?

And you're going to tell me what to do, because you know what's good for me, and I don't?

Even if it means defying the constitution?

Un-be-fucking-lievable.

There are plenty of communist and socialist nations which agree with your ideals. Go there. You don't belong here.

By the way, for those just tuning in, DepaKid:

1) has never served in the military
2) has no familiarity with guns on any level
3) has no understanding of what freedom is
4) has no respect for those that have given their lives defending it
5) believes his anti-gun agenda trumps the constitution, and SCOTUS.
6) likely lives a sheltered life in a rich neighborhood, but pretends to know what life is like in 'real' America.

Tool.

[depakid]

34. Now it's false attribution time

Behaving- or thinking childishly is (unfortunately) not limited by age.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

35. This link will explain a lot.......

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=856110

[pegdraggin]

36. What does it explain?

That I belong to a pro-gun forum and arguing with idiots here drives me mad?

I'd have thought by now my pro-gun stance was pretty much obvious.

[depakid]

37. I think you explained it quite clearly in your previous posts

particularly the last one above this.....

[pegdraggin]

38. Speaking of Michael Moore

I know he's your inspiriation. So check out the new thread I posted on him. Your thoughts and feelings would be warmly welcomed.-

[depakid]

39. Would that be because he's "a socialist" and "a commie" too?

:rofl:

[remedy1]

44. Dude...

Your posts are about the best I've ever read here.

I wish I could state it as well as you.

[beevul]

48. Society has limitations on how it may limit behavior.

Society has limitations on how it may limit behavior of individuals through government interference with the excercise rights.

They are part of the ORGINAL social contract - which in fact supercedes all others.

You may have heard of it - its called The Bill Of Rights.

You either have no clue about it, or simply refuse to acknowledge what it and its purpose are.



Oh, and predictable as it is to paint your opponents as "absolutists", everybody hereabouts and everywhere else that reads it is going to know it for the utter bullshit it is.

In fact, you seem much closer to a absolutist in a pro-control way, than any "pro-rights" poster or person I have seen or replied to in quite some time.

You need to take a long hard look at yourself before you start labeling anybody else an "absolutist".

[one-eyed fat man]

54. I understand now

apparently you and collective in your benign and benevolent wisdom, would define what constitute acceptable behaviors (for our own good of course) that do not violate the social contract. Doubtless, you would ensure that people do not have unprotected sex, drive antique cars without airbags, pollution controls, fly upside down in airplanes, run with scissors, own chainsaws without anti-kickback blades, or smoke (tobacco only) and only take public transport.

How much more self-important, self-absorbed, supercilious, arrogant and paternalistic can one be?

and with apologies for paraphrasing someones tag line, damn if you didn't take '1984' as an instruction manual!

[paulsby]

52. get your facts right

"Back in a time before you were likely born, when you could order a rifle from Sears, and marksmanship was a part of 4H and other youth organizations, you never heard about all these gun deaths. The accidental deaths you hear of now are caused by ignorance and lack of familiarity. If our society was as gun-tolerant now as it was a few decades ago, you wouldn't be hearing of all these accidental deaths. "

accidental shooting RATES (iow per capita) have been going down for DECADES.

they are at the lowest levels they have been since we started keeping stats.

[Raskolnik]

22. What "certain sort of weapon" is the major problem in this country?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you really arguing that so-called assault weapons are the "major problem" in this country?

[benEzra]

40. Those "certain sorts of weapons" would be pistols and revolvers.

Only 3% of U.S. murders involve rifles, but you probably already knew that.

[rl6214]

20. Well said.

[intheb0x]

53. wow

you make so much sense here, and depa is just at a loss for words.

he doesnt even seem to read shit what you say, he cant debate it because he knows hes all wrong and cant address one thing you say head on.

keep it up man, as much as they would like to crumple up the constitution and throw it out the window they cant, and it eats them inside and out.

hes the type of guy to hide under a desk and cringe when a firecracker goes off.

you said it best, take away the CITIZENS gun rights away so he can "feel" more safe, when infact he would be LESS safe.

[Taitertots]

23. Sounds like double speak for...

Turn NICS databased into de facto gun registration.
Ban all new semi-automatics under the guise of "assault weapons"
"Child safe" and micro stamping is code for run gun manufactures out of business by forcing them to include expensive features.


So the Obama platform is without exception to ban the most popular guns, create a registration system, and run the manufacturers out of business. He has it on his website.

[Tim01]

41. Yep, once they can politically get away with it.

[depakid]

42. You seem to me to be precisely the sort of person who we need to keep assault weapon away from.

[Tim01]

43. You seem to me exactly sort of person the rest of need to protect.

[yay]

45. I doubt it will happen

Despite what they have said, I really really doubt(and hope) that they would be stupid enough to sign another AWB into law. Considering all the pro-RKBA attitudes we've seen both in congress and the GP I'd say it's pretty much dead.

If the brady campaign disappeared the issue would be dead.

[Tim01]

55. Considering all the people who have said they want the AWB

I think it is only a matter of time until somebody tries it.

[tekisui]

46. Who is 'they'?

[X_Digger]

47. Umm.. did you click on the link or read the quote?

The 'They' in the quote appears to be Obama and Biden:

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

[umccoyw]

50. child proofing is waste of time

child proofing a gun would make it difficult to fire if needed in self defense, some guns already have safety on grip that when you hold it properly it pushes it in so it can fire. Even if they did pass law that they had to be childproof are they going to take away all the guns that arent child proof now?

[Tim01]

51. Really expensive. In addition to not effective.