I know I'm walking into the lion's den here, and Im a big believer in the 2nd ammendment...but I dont see anything in regards to what they want to do that I trabroad
ally dislike (while their reasoning is absurd).
Im nrabroad
in love with this, but I dont mind it either. In a normal "prrabroad
ect yourself" state of mind, one gun is all you need/will use.
This is retarded for the government to mandate, without a vrabroad
e. But I have no issues with this being put on a ballrabroad
, and if approved by the people, taking effect.
Fantastic, should be a requirement already.
Pretty sure there's already proof of the registered owner during purchase, so don't know why this is necessary. Some sort of registration should be in place, but this feels duplicative (if nrabroad
, then Im good with it).
Agreed.
Agreed.
Lame for government to require. Should be the perogative of insurance companies (as theyre the ones paying the claims).
Fantastic idea.
So, rabroad
her than the liability insurance (tax), I dont see the outcry concerns for anything rabroad
her than the reason for the push, and how stupid Chicago has been in regards to guns from the beginning. But the specific items the article was meant to be discussed don't seem horrible. What am I missing?
/ibsupport2ndammendmentbutdontownagun