At one point in the state of California, it was legal for those who owned magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition to continue possessing them, so long as they were registered. After some time that was no longer the case, and those who owned these legally registered magazines were ordered to surrender them. Their once-legal property was declared illegal overnight without notice or compensation.
You can't be serious. https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/w...sal-to-confiscate-assault-weapons-71360069586
You damn right I'm serious. Just as I thought, your statement was BS. You and I have both read/seen your attachment. The difference is English is my native language and I understand what it says. Beto was stupid for what he said but it doesn't change the fact he was only talking about certain types of guns. When you say "they're after our guns" you're trying to exaggerate by saying they're after "all" our guns and no one has said that. When they say we want to restrict a certain type of gun that's nothing more than what most responsible citizens want. If you are worried about loosing your UZI buy a six shot revolver for each room in your house. Then buy a shortie .12 gauge pump for each room of your house. Then buy yourself a Winchester 94 for each room of your house and you should feel safe. If that doesn't work you can put a wall around your house. Hopefully you'll feel safe then.
That’s certainly an option. But most of us will simply not allow our constotutionallynprotected property to be stolen by the government. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. The government can not ban an entire class of weapon.
Ultimately it makes no meaningful difference. An effort to prohibit the legal ownership of one type of legal firearm, is exactly the same thing as an effort to prohibit the legal ownership of all firearms.
Do 'assault weapons' qualify as guns? Does Beto wan to confiscate them? And thus, a demonstration of a Democrat who IS coming for our guns -- as you asked for.
Then don't BS with "they want our guns". Be truthful enough to say "they want some of our guns" and I'll stop accusing you of exaggerating.
There's not a quantum of exaggeration in the statement that some Democrats do indeed want to confiscate guns, as proven my my previous post.
As I've already said. BS. He's wanting "some of your guns". English speaking people understand the difference between that and "they want your guns".
Ultimately, what meaningful difference is made by the focus being on a single type of firearm that is currently legally available for ownership on the open market, as opposed to the focus being on all firearms that are currently legally available for ownership on the open market?
If you count pollution and all fuel related issues (oil wars, spills on sea, pipeline leaks) cars are just terrible. When you count all cars and think about how much those generate air pollution.. well, that's a lot. US is heavily relying on cars and it's just how it is. I don't need car here (Finland) as I'm using public transportation (trains, buses), heck I don't have even driving license. So generally, cars as whole, is pretty harmful machine and our ways are build in way we don't have much of choice (as mankind). We end up making mistakes and even when we have enough scientific evidence about "dark side" of our things out there, we keep going with our habits as there isn't enough alternatives around. Pollution kills people many times over compared to guns as it ruins drinking water, air and causes diseases, so on... Short term usefulness is dominating for now, while it's causing long term issues. Question is how it's worth it? (we humans are temporary oddities anyway, so maybe it's time to put ourselves out for good via making continually bad choices?). We get what we deserve.
Me?The 2,500 times is a very low count. Sounds like one, decent sized county. Not the entire country.
Not me, Iv'e been a cyclist my entire 40 years on earth (well, from an early age). Here is my latest fabrication and daily ride (not to say I wont hop in a friends car, for somethings)
Nice ride. I'm biking only in summer as in winter our streets are mostly covered by ice/snow here and low temp is freezing my fingers pretty fast. I know one American who's biking here a lot even in winter, but well, I'm not interested - waiting summer already
It's 5:16 am here, our coldest day of the year in S.W. Florida. Maybe 40F by 6 am. Granted, if it freezes here (has not yet, this year) it's only for about one hour. I just dress for it. I too, have never had a drivers license. You oughta see the lights I have on it (you can see some of the wiring, 12V battery in my "saddle bag" *old lunchbox* I can get down the road, surprisingly fast.
Cars ruin streams from gravel mining to get the aggregate for concrete and asphalt (seen this myself many times from my canoe). Cars ruin the landscape and make driving very unpleasant, as well as causing the roadways to be built which in turn is causing loss of trees and asphalt and concrete soaking up heat to contribute to global warming. Lord Mr. Ford, what the hell have you done? It's far, far worse than the gun.
Those people carrying guns to church are more likely to start mass shootings than stop them. "Analysis by the Violence Policy Center has found that at least 29 mass shootings since 2007 were carried out by perpetrators with concealed carry permits. That's more than three times the number of concealed permit holders who prevented mass shootings through their swift action. And it's not as though those heroes (and they are heroes) are truly stemming the tide of non-sensical gun deaths in the U.S.: A Washington Post analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data found that, for every 'justifiable' gun homicide in 2012, there were 34 criminal gun homicides, 78 gun suicides, and at least two accidental gun deaths. Similarly, a 2014 study from the University of California San Francisco found that people who owned a gun were three times as likely to kill themselves as non-firearm owners; by comparison, the annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002 percent. Hell, even toddlers killed more people than terrorists in 2015. Guns are used far more often for killing than for self-defense, despite the fact that some 63 percent of Americans think guns make them safer." https://psmag.com/the-pernicious-myth-of-the-good-guy-with-a-gun-3f5b4f0b157a#.g4cwvzvit Concealed carry should be outlawed.
Since 2007, there have been over 200 mass shootings. We don't know how many concealed permit holders prevented mass shootings. Mass shootings tend not to take place where weapons are allowed. They tend to occur in no gun zones. It does not necessarily require firing a gun to stop a gunman. Just the knowledge that some one has a gun is sometimes sufficient to stop the shooting before it starts.
Better go tell the police and military. Your simulations are worthless. can a shooter continue a mass shooting if someone puts a bullet in his skull? Can you do that if you don't have a gun? If you can't kill active shooters with guns, why are they able to kill themselves with them? why do military and police carry them? No it doesn't it requires a gun ammuntion and a finger. again if an active shooter has bullets passed through his skull is he able to keep killing? anyone can kill someone with a gun. that's why we invented them. Forgetting of course the fact that most mass shootings occur in places where you aren't allowed to have a gun. it is almost like making people defenseless leads to massacre. Those conclusions seem questionable. assuming people are more encouraged to engage in crime by following a law is on the face of it patently absurd.
Guns are useful as weapons. They have exactly the same utility they have ever had. think about it this way, Say I have a gold ingot at my feet. would you be more or less willing to steal it if I had a shotgun pointed at your face, than if I didn't? hopefully you can understand the scenario I presented and if you do, you understand the utility that guns have had since their advent.
Of the list presented by the violence policy center, nine of the incidents do not qualify as mass shootings as they have less than the minimum number of four victims, thus they do not count and will not be discussed. That leaves twenty incidents, by twenty individuals, over a span of twelve years. Twenty individuals out of approximately ten million or more individuals. Such is hardly indicative of any significant trend, or otherwise demonstrates why the legal carrying of concealed firearms by members of the public is something that should be stopped.
~ I never gave much thought to the 2nd Amendment of our U.S. Constitution - until this lunatic group of far leftist "progressive" Democrats came along. My feelings today are going in the direction of trusting my fellow Americans. Law-abiding citizens who pass background investigation and complete mandatory training should be able to CCW - regardless of state and local laws. There should be a proposal for a Federal CCW permit good in all 50 states. Violations of local laws would then be a low-grade misdemeanor. There are simply far too many firearms in the U.S. to even consider an outright "ban" - likely requiring an amendment to the Constitution. It seems ridiculous to think the average American cannot be trusted to own a gun if desired or necessary. As John Lott says in his controversial book : 'More Guns - Less Crime'. Perhaps one group should be restricted - the Democrats !!
There is already a Federal CCW permit good in all 50 states. Give some more thought to the 2nd Amendment.
