I tell the truth, your posts are dishonest. if you want to save lives, you sure haven't proposed anything that has any validity in doing that. You want laws designed to harass gun owners (people you constantly ridicule as "playing with guns" which demonstrates your real agenda) rather than suggesting things that actually impede criminals.
You are honest? lets examine some of your oft repeated assertions for veracity 1) you claim I am a gun banner for saying the government (at a state) level can ban felons from owning guns 2) you claim you are not a gun banner even though you not only believe both the federal and state governments can ban felons from owning guns, you want them to do even more to prevent felons from getting guns. thus you are more anti gun than i am 3) you claim you aren't a gun banner, yet you praise the gun banning laws of England and Japan 4) you claim registration in Canada works well-that's a lie if crime control is the goal. Its true if harassing people is the goal 5) you claim that I want to disarm all blacks-that's a blatant lie 6) you claim that making private citizens conduct background checks will stop crime-that has no factual support and since you know it-its a lie a) you also claim that the UBGC is "just a form": that is a lie because you later said we needed complete registration for that to work 7) you claim you care about lives yet you have yet to propose anything that remotely resembles a program that will advance any public safety. When you are questioned about that-we get throwaway childish lines like "its just form", it "works great" or we "want to save lives your posts are among the most dishonest on this board.
Ok lets remind everyone.....again. 1) You blame all blacks for all gun violence in this country 2) You have come out in favor of gun bans 3) You have agreed gun control is a great idea 3) You want to ban all blacks from owning guns 4) You also want to incarcerate all blacks. I am against gun bans but if you continue to post lies about me I will be forced to remind everyone about your views
that proves how many lies you tell you cannot find a single post that remotely supports your mendacious claims and several posters have called you out on your lies.
Turtledude has never attacked you. He only shows the falsehood of your statements and how you twist things to suit your gun control agenda.
You say we are paranoid to be suspicious of government intentions in the US, and then you compare us to U.K. and Australia, who have done much of this very gun control.
No. Its primarily made up of elitist socio and psychopaths who desire power and control over their fellow man. Americans (as most of the world) have become lazy and doscile, willing to be ruled so long as they dont have to pay attention to the rulers. We cast off the yolks of kings and emporers centuries ago, and now are ruled by debt and bureacracy. But the Monarchs never went away, they've just been hiding, pulling strings from the shadows to resolidify their reign. Once we've handed over enough of our own sovereignty, our wealth, our freedom to excersize our will, they will take their thrones back. And now they have the technology to keep their power, if we let them have it. But we are yet armed. A sufficiently armed populace cannot ever be subdued. Humans by and large will resist slavery if they think they have the means to succeed, and in the US we have enough privately owned firearms for ALL of us. The big question is- will we use our political power to thwart the elites before they regain their thrones, or will we wait until we have to use our guns to keep our liberty?
New York City style Gun control makes me paranoid, but it is not paranoia if they really out to get your guns. NYC first registered "Assault Weapons" then banned them within the 5 boroughs. Almost nobody gets a license to carry, it is much easier to become a Police Officer than to obtain a carry permit. Tell us once more how gun control makes unarmed victims safer.....
If you can't hack living in NYC without carrying, move to Vermont. The interactive chart above shows that the 50 cities fall into four categories. In each group the level and trajectory of murder rates differ: they are low and stable in 13 cities (among them New York and Los Angeles); in 15 they are low but increasing (Houston and Las Vegas); in 9 they are high but stable (Philadelphia and Detroit); and in 13 they are high and rising (Chicago and Indianapolis). It is too early to know precisely what has caused this spike in violence. And factors that affect one city may not afflict another. Newark, just ten miles from New York City, has a murder rate nine times higher. And unlike New York, where homicides have fallen 85% from their peak in 1990, in Newark they have barely budged. Much of that difference can be explained by demography, deprivation and policing. https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-3
The data above is gathered from what information the states willingly supply to the FBI for being made available.
Perhaps, but if a govt catch and find a crook guilty. That govt will be heavily restricting that individuals rights (throwing him in jail) whilst the rest of society becomes more safe ( have there rights extended). It is more about trying to do the right thing and trying to do it effectively then which ever side of the idealogical divide on guns you fall on.
The above example, however, utilizes the concept of due process. Simply implementing legislative restrictions across the board in a one-size-fits-all approach, however, does not utilize due process. The two standards are not similar to one another.
In this thread, I have not raised a particular gun control measure I would like mine or your country take on. But rest assured any law I propose would involve due process and if I was in a position to do the same, would endeavor to ensure that it is enforced effectively.
True. No one who seeks to protect the law abiding and/or lower violent crime has any issue with violent criminals spending a lot more time in jail. In fact, that would be the second change they'd make - right after making it easier for the law abiding to access the means to defend themselves.
But there shouldn't be an ideological divide! The Constitution states, unequivocally, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The only "divide" is those who acknowledge reality and those who refuse to. We'd make a whole lot more progress if the gun controllers would address this honestly and base their arguments on reality and not ideology.
I would take serious issue with the government or any political group or movement that attempted to abridge,negate,minimize or even revoke ANY of the basic freedoms itemized in the bill of rights , period. I would hope we all would.Now there are those who think they have the genius or the mandate to tinker with these amendments, abolish them etc because they know what is best for everybody, more contemporary , trendy ,or useful to their goals and by god we had better do it.At the very best I consider them smug,overbearing and naive..at the worst treasonous and wanna be dictators.You respect, and demand adherence to all of them or none..there is no middle ground.
The 'they' you speak of would not exist in it current form without armed citizens to expand the nation in its earlier days. European borders were set over hundreds and hundreds of years, much of it deliniated by cultural/ethinic differences. The US borders were defined by US citizens expanding westward across hostile territory with little or no support from the government. It is within that context of independence from authority and self-reliance/preservation provided by the 2nd Amendment that this nation grew. No other nation has a history even remotely similar when all factors are taken into account. The spirit that grew this nation still exists, and it won't be forgotten or tossed aside because some whiny 'intellectuals' are afraid of inanimate objects...
Indeed. Aussies have no such experience and so we cannot expect them to look at the issue through our frame of reference.
I always find it amusing that while celebrities and politicians espouse these things , there is also a campaign by the true believers to convince us that is not true
