posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 11:14 AM
How can Kate Brown talk about securing firearms with more regulation when she doesn't even help secure the the damn border? Every time they come up
with new ideas for regulating firearms it's always under the guise that they are all "Assault Weapons" I don't know what the hell they are talking
about Assault rifles have been banned for 30 years or more. Besides what is this new regulations going to do. If a person has made it up in their mind
that they are going to commit a mass shooting it's not going to stop them from loading a 30 round mag. However, they believe everyone should be
limited and those firearms under lock and key. Which means you might as well not have a firearms altogether. What purpose does a firearm serve if you
cannot quickly access it?
Of course it needs to be stored, but limiting rounds, placing mags away from each other etc making up nonsense regulation is just throwing crap at the
wall to see what sticks. In a real world scenario imagine fumbling around for your firearm in the dark and trying to remember the code, the keys to
the lock, where the ammo is, is my family members in imminent danger. Meanwhile the intruder has more firepower than you do and you have no power to
call the police on your voip phone.
You can have all the regulations, police, laws and rules, none of that makes a difference, but you can prepare and limit the situation by being on the
same level as the intruder. Schools want to be a gun free zone, well you can wish for that all you want, but it comes down to having an armed security
officer, and metal detectors is the best protection you can get.
You don't lower mass shootings by limiting the very tool that is needed to protect. You want to disarm everyone. Well the world doesn't work that way.
If one of the people in those situations was armed there would be less deaths, I would take less deaths over lots of deaths any day.