Here they do also. Two senators lost their seats in Colorado when they were voted out for voting on high capacity magazine bans in Colorado.
Well certainly. Anyone who insulted someone else overtly and allowed themselves to be reported would have scrambled eggs for brains.
It's already been stated with real statistics from our own government, the FBI, that the overwhelming majority of criminals get their guns illegally. Thus, new laws won't help. There are literally millions of illegal firearms on the streets just from thefts alone. You need a better argument because ^ that one is old and is proven by the FBI's statistics to be wrong. Sorry. I know though, since "I don't like what you said, it must be wrong".... ya.... even thought the FBI says you're full of it. It's actually not. 8 months ago when my business partner went there he literally bought a .50 DEagle out of the back of a car for $600 US dollars. He took a picture. You're full of it. Stop listening to your liberal brethren, they usually don't know what they're talking about either. The US has tried, many times. It never goes through. The last ban was the one Clinton upheld, the "assault weapon" ban. Crime went up, the law went out. The end. Actually, it was in a Democrat bill put forth (go figure). It's part of the Brady Bill, section 103 (i): (i) PROHIBITION RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS- No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may-- (1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm. Honestly, I don't give a crap about those that commit suicide, it's their life, not mine. To try to stop someone from doing what they want to do is quite literally to step on their rights. I know you bleeding heart type are all gushy eyed over it, but you can't stop someone who is actually going to kill themselves. Their cheese has slid off their cracker, and there isn't any way to put it back on. Now the 11,961 murders, no, I'm not ok with that, no one is. Your laws aren't going to stop those though, that's what you don't understand. Japan's culture is vastly different than ours. That's like saying "this orange doesn't taste like that steak, I want a new orange" or something. Come on man, get better analogies. How about Switzerland and Japan? Switzerland has more firearms to owner rates than the USA does, and they're better than Japan as far as homicides goes with and without firearms. Again though, our culture is nothing like Switzerland's. So, it's not about changing the laws around an inanimate object, it's about changing the people. This is BS. Sorry, you just don't know what you're talking about. Of 218 countries that list their statistics, the USA sits at 98 as far as its murder rate goes. Kenya for instance has stricter laws than any of our states and yet has worse crime, and a worse murder rate. They're at 125. Thailand has a strict registry, and they're at 113. South Africa also has a registry, they're at 208. Argentina is yet another place that has strict laws and a registration. They're at 118. Brazil is at 201 and has a strict registry and firearm laws. I have to mention Chile because they seem like the worst place to have a gun legally. They regulate them through the Army in Chile... They're rate is just slightly better than ours. Jamaica is at 213. Funny thing there, they actually (the government) stated that the murder rate went up after their strict gun registry and ban. Mexico is not actually an outlier, and at 192, definitely not the worst place with a national registry on the list. Honduras has really strict regulations against firearms and a strict registry. They are literally the worst on the list as far as murders. Let me make this clear to you... Almost every country that is worse than us (remember, we're at 98 of 21 has a strict gun registry. Your point is wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry. This is exactly how you are, so, what's the difference? Also, next I will post a giant picture of the countries and how they rate so you can go through them and look at the murder rate and where everyone stands. - - - Updated - - - Just for you Vegas. The homicide rate around the world and everyone's ranking. Remember, just about every country beneath us has a registry.
The truth is that your post hoc fallacy precludes your argument from being sound. That being the case, you have yet to provide te sound argument asked of you. You, of course know that you cannot present such an argument and from this pint will do all you can to avoid doing so. I thank you for making it clear that I need not waste any further time on you.
Guns are legal devices, and nothing on armslist is illegal, hence it cannot be banned due to Open internet rules. The non-harmful devices in the open internet rules have to do with device attached to the internet, not to devices advertised. Try again. Here is the rule again: Since you can't attach a gun to a network, this isn't really relevant. Now, I would agree, that if you had an internet enabled firearm, that a ISP could block access to that.......
But you haven't proven that registration of guns causes the decrease in gun crimes. Correlation does not imply causation. - - - Updated - - - You don't have much of a sarcasm detector...... - - - Updated - - - Not really. You are talking about what statistics does to outliers. Science studies outliers further to determine the reason for the outlier. Often the outliers give clues as to how the system works. You need to study sarcasm and science......
Can you use USPS? Fedex won't do it, unless you're sending it from an individual to a licensed gun dealer/importer/etc. http://www.fedex.com/us/freight/rulestariff/prohibited_articles.html UPS wont' do it either. https://www.ups.com/content/us/en/resources/ship/packaging/guidelines/firearms.html I agree with you totally on the second paragraph. Not sure why you are responding to me as if I'm an anti-gunner, I was just responding to the internet gun sales semi-myth.
I don't need to prove anything of the kind. There are so many variables it would be impossible to prove. Just like there are so many variables in saying that lowering taxes improves the economy. They don't try to prove it.....they just do it because they believe it to be true (did not work so well in Kansas though). My sarcasm detector is finely tuned. I simply responded in kind.
Correct.... it is not possible to prove. That's probably why it has not happened yet knowing that with such weak evidence that it wouldn't hold up when constitutionally challenged. Poof. So instead, the grabbers advocate for UBC's which is a backhanded de facto registration.
And no proof is needed to use tax cuts to improve the economy (like the great job they did for Kansas). It should be quite clear that proof is not required
Proof is not required, but tax cuts were not challenged in court the way that firearm registration would. No legislators are going to put their job on the line for an issue so polarizing, and would only end up being litigated for years. Instead they are looking for underhanded backdoor ways to achieve it.
Legislators here must cherish their jobs more. They have learned from the last couple of elections. Face it, there is just no congressional support.
Liberals are only interested in the acquisition and retention of partisan political power; all of their actions are a means to this end. And so, if "the right thing to do" will cost them that political power, they won't do it. That is, their seats in congress are more important to them than the children they cry about.
What happened in Australia is irrelevant in the US, this isn't Australia and anyone thinking what worked there can remotely work her has not understanding of reality... http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
Conservatives on the other hand care nothing for power...oh....wait....I just threw up in my mouth a little. lol
The nation of Australia is not the united states. The two are not comparable to one another in any way.
If for no other reason that the state forcing you, a legal gun owner, to give up your guns for no reason other than the law says you have to violates our constitution.
