Are Firearms Regulations Too Strict?
The National Rifle Association is hosting a convention in St. Louis this weekend with speakers like Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, U.S. Senator Roy Blunt and Glenn Beck.
There will be a wide array of guns and knives for people to "ooh" and "ahh" about as the National Rifle Association (NRA) brings its annual meeting and exhibits to town Friday and through the weekend at America's Center.
St. Louis is hosting the NRA convention for the second time in five years. In 2007, the city was the beneficiary of an NRA decision to abandon its original host city of Columbus, OH, a retaliation that followed the Columbus City Council's passage of a law banning assault-type weapons. The NRA moved its big confab to St. Louis and liked it so much it came back this year.
So, what restrictions on firearms are acceptable? By its actions, the NRA obviously doesn't like bans on assault weapons, but are there any restrictions the organization will accept?
Short of an all-out ban of firearms, what restrictions would you propose as a possible way to reduce the incidence of gun crimes?
This isn't intended as a "slippery slope" that eventually leads to confiscating guns, but as a well-intentioned dialogue for all sides to determine an appropriate amount of restrictions, if any, on firearms.
What regulations would you suggest or support on firearms? Use the comments section below to weigh in on the topic.