Why not full discolusre?

[bucfan64 307]

If everyone, left and right, really wants to have a "gun debate why not have one?

 

However, if this is going to be done right, it should require FULL DISCLOSURE on the part of all involved in the debate.

 

For example, when a "lets ban all guns," Mayor Bloomberg type is publicly stating his/her views, we should require that he/she answer the following questions.

 

1. Do you own a weapon?

2. Do you have a concealed carry permit?

3. Do you use armed security?

4. Are you willing to part with your weapons, your permit, and your armed security?

 

I guarantee that if these type of questions were asked that these "gun haters," would be exposed for the hypocrites that they really are. Which would considerably damage their argument.

 

On the other hand this approach would also lend credibility to a "gun hater," who actually practices what they preach.

 

I imagine that the argument would not amount to much if FULL DISCLOSURE was actually implemented during this so called debate.

 

Just some food for thought!

[wave316 64]

If everyone, left and right, really wants to have a "gun debate why not have one?

 

However, if this is going to be done right, it should require FULL DISCLOSURE on the part of all involved in the debate.

 

For example, when a "lets ban all guns," Mayor Bloomberg type is publicly stating his/her views, we should require that he/she answer the following questions.

 

1. Do you own a weapon?

2. Do you have a concealed carry permit?

3. Do you use armed security?

4. Are you willing to part with your weapons, your permit, and your armed security?

 

I guarantee that if these type of questions were asked that these "gun haters," would be exposed for the hypocrites that they really are. Which would considerably damage their argument.

 

On the other hand this approach would also lend credibility to a "gun hater," who actually practices what they preach.

 

I imagine that the argument would not amount to much if FULL DISCLOSURE was actually implemented during this so called debate.

 

Just some food for thought!

 

I agree with your statement! I'm not a gun owner and have been trying to find what could be done to make our country safer while yet not infringing on 2nd Amendment freedom...I respect your wisdom ,what would your thoughts be on this subject.

[legend11 32]

If everyone, left and right, really wants to have a "gun debate why not have one?

 

However, if this is going to be done right, it should require FULL DISCLOSURE on the part of all involved in the debate.

 

For example, when a "lets ban all guns," Mayor Bloomberg type is publicly stating his/her views, we should require that he/she answer the following questions.

 

1. Do you own a weapon?

2. Do you have a concealed carry permit?

3. Do you use armed security?

4. Are you willing to part with your weapons, your permit, and your armed security?

 

I guarantee that if these type of questions were asked that these "gun haters," would be exposed for the hypocrites that they really are. Which would considerably damage their argument.

 

On the other hand this approach would also lend credibility to a "gun hater," who actually practices what they preach.

 

I imagine that the argument would not amount to much if FULL DISCLOSURE was actually implemented during this so called debate.

 

Just some food for thought!

In defense of Bloomberg (can't believe I just typed that. Those words have never been spoken before by liberals or conservatives), he doesn't want to get rid of all guns like Bucfan suggests. His city, like other metropolitan areas (Chicago and St. Louis in particular), is swamped by illegal gun traffic and acquisition. It's this illegal transfer of guns that Bloomberg focuses on, and he has worked hard to spread that message. Bloomberg even started a Super PAC called "Mayors Against Illegal Guns". Furthermore, on the Super PAC's website, it makes this statement:

 

But what binds us together is a determination to fight crime, and a belief that we can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them.

 

Here's a link to the website in case anyone wants to look at it: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/about.shtml

 

Also, I don't know if the conversation the left and right would have would revolve around getting rid of concealed carry laws and laws regarding guns used for hunting and other sport. From what I've read, and this includes both liberal and conservative talkers/writers, the conversation would focus on the high-capacity ammunition, assault weapons, etc. that are viewed by most as unnecessary and dangerous.

 

EDIT:

Here are more words from Bloomberg regarding his stance on gun laws: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/18/michael-bloomberg-on-need-to-control-guns/1777889/

Edited December 18, 2012 by legend11