Inquiring minds want to know:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1222198
Well, he IS on MSNBC. so maybe Rachel Maddow is exercising some kind of mind control over him.
I think ole Rachel as had a "addadicktame". Or maybe 'she" has had one all along.I agree...it may sound simple but look at Mexico. It does not work. Plus it ain't gonna happen. Gun Lobby is to strong. They may pass the semi ban again. But wtf did that really do in terms of reducing violence?
But I will admitt, I am a closet fan, because at times she seems to be the only sane person on MSNBC. Of course, with the likes of Al Sharpton, Chris Mathews, and idiot Ed, that bar isn't really set too high.
As for Joe S, even I agree with him. There probably needs to be a re-think on the entire Semi Auto Rifle availability. But since there are lirterally millions out there, I am not sure that the Government is ready to make criminals out of a big chunk of the population.
Passing a law for confiscation is one thing, actually doing it another. And, as I said in a previous post, are we ready to change what many believe is a fundemental aspect of being an American.
This is not going to be a pretty fight. Originally Posted by Jackie S
Banning Guns would be a poor move. Violence would continue but in a different manner. Mayhem such as these School shootings might come in the form of Explosives being set. The Shooters at Columbine H.S. back in 1999 along with Firearms, they used explosives made from Propane Tanks. Fortunately most of them malfunctioned and didn't detonate. Investigaters found information on one of the boys computer which indicated their plan was meant to kill about six hundred students by use of explosives.So banning guns certainly won't curb violence. It may just make Law abiding citizens sitting ducks. Originally Posted by acp5762Actually you bolster the point. Making explosives that work correctly is MUCH harder than pulling a trigger. If the Columbine boys only had the bombs, there would have been much less death.