Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Maccabee, Jan 4, 2020.
Yes to both. All you need is money.
Cuba or North Korea might be more to your liking.
Yup. And millions of good normal people who make the works safer by carrying firearms
they can't be banned. you would need an amendment to do this.
It doesn't need to be "updated". Self defense is an inherent right.
The right to self defense is inherent. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear.
That is true but for every 4 guys like you - you get one guy who never should be allowed any guns
I'm not compromising my inherent right to self defense. I'm not giving up freedoms to become a slave.
Neither are numerous localities in Virginia, who are currently standing up to that State's current gun grabbing efforts. Good for them!
As an alternative to losing our basic human rights completely.
How are you going to effectively do that?
Precisely. I absolutely refuse to comply with any sort of gun grabbing laws. They will have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands.
More like for every 1000. BUT...
Did you know that it's already illegal fir those people to purchase or possess firearms?
Did you know. It's illegal for them to even try to buy a gun?
Did you know that tens of thousands of people fail background checks evey year but only a tiny tiny fraction are prosecuted?
You want more gun control? Tell the doj to prosecute the cases we already know about..
Lose your right to self defense. You've already lost all your other rights.
My problem is that with UBC, we get a backdoor gun registration. I would include the provision that anybody who possesses a FOID, CCL, military ID, police credentials, or judicial credentials is exempt from any background check or paperwork during purchases. All of these people carry proof of a current background check. Any further scrutiny is simply registration.
Who are you to tell me what my self defense needs are? I get to decide what my self defense needs are,not some gun grabber.
then I say again, the topic is compromising, if you wont compromise then why reply here?
What about those souls that have been killed including school children, do they have a right to live? do they have a right to represent the "gun grabbers" or the "gun grabbers" have a right to represent them? Or dont you care about the slain? are they just statistics to you? If you want to keep your gun rights then do you also care about remedying the numbers of people killed or is the number acceptabel because sure as yabbies bite your toes it isnt acceptable anywhere else in the world.
Now your moving the goal posts. I didn't ask you about mass shootings, I asked about what give you the right to determine what my self defense needs are. You have no idea what i need to defend my home or my self. But for some reason you think that you do.
Because, if you need cannons you are living in the wrong place.
Facilities of learning in the united states are intentionally left defenseless against those who seek to harm the students that are present, often because adequate security measures are derided as being both cost prohibitive, and giving the impression of facilities of learning becoming prisons.
So what is the proposal on the part of yourself for those that do indeed live in the wrong place, and who are incapable of leaving? Remove the so-called "cannons" to give the illusion of the the location changing for the better, when in fact it is not?
I have a different persepctive. If my life and that of my loved ones was at stake I'd move - nothing would stop me.
Austrlaia, NZ, Shangrilah...
Any one with more then two working brain cells,would realize that a cannon would be a piss poor choice for self defense.
dont take up comedy
Separate names with a comma.