..while you sit back and say we don't need guns, how American of you...you, an American and you are wanting all of America to think and do as you? very Hitler of you ..... since you want to live like a socialist, move to freakin' China. By the way, how does it feel to turn on your fellow Americans? or are you not really from here...
Can a pro gun tell me how a register of gun would have stopped any of the recent shootings? I don't see how it would have stop any of these. Please explain how it would have. If registering a gun doesn't even stop a shooting than what's the real reason?
And since you think you know so much about me, do tell me what you think I want Americans to think? - - - Updated - - - In your mind, perhaps but I know i'm right and your wrong. Just the way it is.
The reason is they are not realist but just want to do something. A better question to them is why not pass a law to control murder.
But I don't see how it would. There is only one reason a register would be good for. Ok two. If you need to raid a house than it would be nice to now how many and what kind of guns are in that house. But that would assume a criminal would register a gun anyhow. Lol the other reason would be for confiscation. Please if I'm wrong educate me. I would try to have an open mind.
you want them all disarmed..simple.....that is a direct violation of you Bill of Rights because you don't have the where-with-all to give up MY Rights because you don't want yours. You can give up yours, but you do not have the Right to demand others follow your lead, Mr. Already Disarmed.
Both you and I will have to agree to disagree. Just sayin'. - - - Updated - - - I know this will ruin your day, but your wrong.....again.
It becomes clear to me that we have our share of village idiots here on the GC forum. Reason and intelligent response is futile. To them, the Constitution and BOR is like the pony tail of the girl who sits in the desk in front of them. They know that tugging at it will get a rise out of some of us. They're not trying to "prove" anything, or engage in a discussion that could lead to any workable solutions. They just want attention, by whatever means. Ignore them.
I have a couple of points. First and foremost, I believe that the Second Amendment should be abolished. The reason for this is simple: I think that towns, cities and states should be able to set their own gun policies. Gun ownership doesn't tend to be a huge problem in rural areas. And particular types of guns just aren't used in a really statistically significant way. Assault rifles, however lethal, are not the weapon of choice for criminals, because they are not easily concealed and they aren't all that useful in close-combat situations. The problem with gun control advocates is that they get caught up on these weapons based upon the potential for misuse, rather than actual misuse. Handguns are the problem. Specifically, handguns in cities. Making them illegal makes a whole lot of sense. If you are caught with one, you go to jail. This will allow officers to disarm a very dangerous yet very small segment of the population that is responsible for most violent crimes. It will simultaneously price most criminals out of the market. The Second Amendment prevents cities from taking these measures, and so it has to go, in my opinion. If you live someplace where the voters support allowing handguns, that's fine. But that is a choice best made by people who actually live there, rather than massive lobbying groups (I'm looking at you, NRA) pretending that what works in the sticks works in the cities, and what works on the East Coast, works on the West. There is also the fact that gun ownership just doesn't have the philosophical strength of other rights.
So you are Ok with the first amendment being abolished so that towns, cities and states should be able to set their own policies, So you are Ok with the third amendment being abolished so that towns, cities and states should be able to set their own policies, So you are OK with the 4th amendment being abolished because towns, cities and states should be able to set their own policies, So you are Ok with the 5th amendment being abolished so that towns, cities and states should be able to set their own policies....etc etc How selfish of you No criminals are the problem...guns can't crap by themselves....your perspective is skewed horrendously.
Nope feel free to do as you please...I never said squat about those who feel they don't need a gun, that was you projecting your intellectual dishonest opinion.
No, I am not okay with the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment being abolished. Because I support abolishing one "right" does not mean I support abolishing all of them. I might also add that the utility of free possession of handguns is considerably less than laws intended to protect speech, privacy or due process rights. I realize that it takes a person to shoot a gun. I also realize that people with handguns are causing massive problems, and that legislation should be enacted to ban them in certain cities. I do not believe in and would not support banning other weapons, because they have not resulted in statistically significant problems. I would appreciate it if you refrained from attacking my opinions as "skewed horrendously." Such condemnations are not really productive, and only serve to inflame an issue that is already governed by far too much emotion. I don't think there is anything wrong with the opinion that people should be able to set such policy locally - if anything, you ought to support it, because if you can convince others of your opinion, you could actually expand what you are allowed to do, instead of being hamstrung by the Federal government.
Because I believe those rights have far greater utility and have resulted in far more demonstrable freedoms than being able to own a handgun. Also, keep in mind that although I am advocating for the Second Amendment to be repealed, I do believe that gun control (or no gun control if the voters prefer) should be set at the local level, which will give you far more control over how it affects your day-to-day lives. Just because I dislike grapefruit doesn't mean I have to dislike oranges.
Well, gun control is currently set at the local levels with wide disparities in outcome. Gun violence is also bad in areas with the strictest gun control so gun control will do nothing to stop the gun violence where it happens the most, in areas with drug problems. One of the most dangerous areas in the country has the strictest gun control, DC. Freedom to defend oneself with a force equalizer is probably the most beneficial freedom of all. Take that away then you can take away all the others much easier.
I realize you did not ask this question of me, so forgive me for answering anyway. The only "goal" I would use a gun for, aside from having fun at the range, would be to protect myself or others from harm from a bonafide bad guy. Unless you ARE a bad guy, who wishes to harm others for no justifiable reason, you have absolutely nothing to fear from me and my gun(s).
Actually, banning handguns is a very effective way of sorting out violent areas. It is why countries like Canada can have ghettos in Toronto and Vancouver, but without the associated level of gun crimes. It gives officers a tool to put people away. Now I understand that would be reprehensible to you personally, so I would encourage you to vote along those lines when selecting a local representative. But it is undeniable that if an officer can put a person away for possessing a handgun, you could effectively gut most gangs overnight. Further, as mentioned, a handgun ban drives up the cost of handguns significantly, as the risks associated with their movement are so great. This will price a great deal of the wannabe gangsters out of the market. Not overnight, but it will have an effect in time. I do not believe that gun control is linked statistically with higher gun violence. I would be glad to see the source you have derived that from, because it goes against numerous positions taken by academics I trust for their relative impartiality. I'm always open to the possibility I could be wrong, after all. I don't think force equalizers are really all that great. I think a fairly objective look at US history shows that being able to arm yourself does not really prevent the government from pretty much doing what it pleases. And in terms of preventing violence from other citizens, I don't really see any big success. The murder rate is nearly twice as high in the US as it is anywhere else in the Western world... and the biggest structural difference is that the US has one right that all the other countries view as a privilege. Don't get me wrong - cultural problems and poverty are by far the biggest reason for gun violence, but I think it is fair to say that we could do quite a bit just by allowing local governments to set their own policy. And, like I said, in many areas of the country, this would result in a rather large expansion of gun rights, not a contraction.
Hmm... Firearms are used to prevent only 3,000,000 violent crimes per year. That's just 1% of the population who actually have a need to defend themselves with a firearm. Sure, let's go ahead and repeal their right to do so. After all, there's only a 1% chance that the person who needs a firearm on any given day would be me or you. In other words, there are only 3 or 4 days out of every year when it's very likely that harm is looking hard at me. Oh, wait. I can pick those days, can't I? Or how about if you just let me pick who has a gun and who doesn't.....
