12-04-2010, 05:06 PM
Glen and Mauka,
If the idea is to keep guns from entering the state then what I stated still makes no sense whatsoever. What makes more sense is to make the person bringing the gun in when they move here to get the permit first. Not AFTER they already have the gun here and have already registered it. Think about it. What I just said here makes more sense if that is what the state is really trying to do. You cannot escape the fact that the morons in the state just created another reason for reasonable people to not want to register the guns in the first place. And the morons just created another avenue for not honest FFL's and others to break the law.
If the state really wants to prevent guns from entering then they need to keep guns from entering the first time, every time. Not just the few guns that get sent to the mainland for repair. That just plain does not make sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating this I am just saying trying to keep one gun from entering the state that previously was in the state will have little to no effect on the number of guns in the state and entering the state. It is obvious to me that this is just a by-product of the moronic laws that have been passed at the state level.
Now Mauka, I don't understand your statement. If we have fewer legal handguns, how does that equate to having fewer illegal handguns? My guess (and it is only a guess) is that more handguns come into the state without ever being registered than the other way around. And I would guess that this includes normally law abiding citizens that either don't know the laws or the ones that do know the law and just never registers them. And don't forget the illegal smuggling of guns into the state only for the purpose of sale to criminals. I am sure this occurs as well. So I ask you how does fewer legal handguns equate to fewer illegal handguns. Sorry, I just don't get it?
Glen, I am all for strict safety training for all gun owners. Don't get me wrong, I think this should be mandatory. But after the gun is already purchased and owned? Really I would think it should be a prerequisite to gun ownership, not the other way around. Please explain to me how requiring safety training after ownership helps the situation and honestly keeps guns out of the hands of the already legal owner?
Please don't take what I am posting as an argument. It is not meant to be. I am trying to understand your line of thinking and really want to know answers to my questions. Thanks!
The Kona Forum
http://www.konaforum.com
Da Kine Web Hosting
http://www.DaKineHosting.com
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former". --Albert Einstein
If the idea is to keep guns from entering the state then what I stated still makes no sense whatsoever. What makes more sense is to make the person bringing the gun in when they move here to get the permit first. Not AFTER they already have the gun here and have already registered it. Think about it. What I just said here makes more sense if that is what the state is really trying to do. You cannot escape the fact that the morons in the state just created another reason for reasonable people to not want to register the guns in the first place. And the morons just created another avenue for not honest FFL's and others to break the law.
If the state really wants to prevent guns from entering then they need to keep guns from entering the first time, every time. Not just the few guns that get sent to the mainland for repair. That just plain does not make sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating this I am just saying trying to keep one gun from entering the state that previously was in the state will have little to no effect on the number of guns in the state and entering the state. It is obvious to me that this is just a by-product of the moronic laws that have been passed at the state level.
Now Mauka, I don't understand your statement. If we have fewer legal handguns, how does that equate to having fewer illegal handguns? My guess (and it is only a guess) is that more handguns come into the state without ever being registered than the other way around. And I would guess that this includes normally law abiding citizens that either don't know the laws or the ones that do know the law and just never registers them. And don't forget the illegal smuggling of guns into the state only for the purpose of sale to criminals. I am sure this occurs as well. So I ask you how does fewer legal handguns equate to fewer illegal handguns. Sorry, I just don't get it?
Glen, I am all for strict safety training for all gun owners. Don't get me wrong, I think this should be mandatory. But after the gun is already purchased and owned? Really I would think it should be a prerequisite to gun ownership, not the other way around. Please explain to me how requiring safety training after ownership helps the situation and honestly keeps guns out of the hands of the already legal owner?
Please don't take what I am posting as an argument. It is not meant to be. I am trying to understand your line of thinking and really want to know answers to my questions. Thanks!
The Kona Forum
http://www.konaforum.com
Da Kine Web Hosting
http://www.DaKineHosting.com
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former". --Albert Einstein