{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/25/2013 4:35:23 PM
3
One thing to consider:
When the amendment was passed the only guns were flintlocks and such like which weren't exactly the most reliable and efficient weapons. Since then guns have become a lot more effective at what they do so I think it should naturally follow that they be treated with more caution.
English
-
Treated with more caution: yes. People need to be responsible and be held responsible for their guns. And really, a compromise needs to be reached in favor of safety. That all comes later.
-
Yes, that's why I think that the recent bill for background checks should have been passed. It regulated the people getting hold of guns.
-
Not really. All it did was require background checks on private sales. Which is entire unenforceable. Background checks from dealers have been required since 1968.
