NY proposing bill to require liability insurance for gun ownership.

And this is in

 

Trump does care about guns he wants to protect our 2nd Ammendment not chip away at it like the leftists want.

 

we also have millions of people able to enjoy shooting sports that are out of reach for the subjects in England and australia. That is something that the BM never ever addresses

 

if that is so, why are you and your fellow anti gun travelers so enraged over Trump winning?

 

Many in the U.K. Are not happy with current restrictions...
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35588594
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back

The restrictive laws in the U.K. And Japan have at their origins disarming segments of population that the reigning governments thought a threat. For the U.K. It was ultimately disarming the Papists and for Japan, the Samurai. Restricting weapons has always been about power and control and the concept of subjects vs citizens. The FF recognized that, the 2A wasn't just about RTKB, for the US it was about one more check in the check and balances of government the put in place... the last check and balance provisions in the Bill of Rights that limits the government and insures the People, the Citizens which the government serves is the ultimate arbritor of how it is to be governened. Any government that doesn't trust it's citizens doesn't deserve to stand. Security of a people isn't the sole domain of a sovereign or government, it is the unity of the citizens and the desire to provide for mutual welfare and defense of all... our government is the product of the will of the people, not the product of an elite rule the elite's will over subjects. In a free society, it is impossible to have perfect safety unless freedom is surrendered, and then impossible as anyone not inclined can prey on others, only stopped after damage has been done. Since we are all joined in governing, our security must be vested in our moral obligation to each other's liberty, protecting each other's rights and in providing mutual security.

I don't understand how anyone can read the Constitution, the greatest vehicle of a people to govern themselves ever concocted and not understand the formative principals that provides the framework of a contract that binds us together in a common cause. There is no other country like the US; no comparisons of the US to any other country have an validity... and without the US as the pillar of freedom in the world, no country, not the U.K., not Japan, and certainly not Australia would be in existence today. That is my opinion and I don't figure I am alone in it.

 

Through the 80s, the ratio of homicides rates of the US to UK averaged 10:1. Now it's less than half of that. How did the US improve against the UK?

Any suggestions that are Constitutional, enforceable, effective and necessary? You keep talking about the UK and Australia. The US is neither, with a vastly different culture and with a Constitution that protects firearms ownership. Address the US without comparison, because frankly we don't care about solutions that involve banning and confiscations.

 

You pretty much nailed the entire problem with the gun ban movement today. Almost all gun banners are Marxist Democrats. Marxist Democrats simply don't believe in the Constitution so they see no reason to actually learn about the principles behind the Constitution. Rule by the elites would be fine by most of them - they consider themselves to *be* the elites!

 

a most excellent point. If gun control was truly a crime control measure (rather than a facade) then one would expect conservatives-especially ones who don't own guns or who have been crime victims, to be prominent supporters of these schemes that only work to limit gun ownership by NON CRIMINALS. but that isn't the case, Gun control is almost entirely a plot supported by the left.

 

I don't really see a lot of evidence to support that. I don't recall him ever even mentioning guns but if I am wrong I would like to hear the comments.

 

And yet, for every gun used to commit a murder in the US yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.
This negates whatever point you think you made.

 

They understand many follow the constitution, but figure people follow the principles and provisions blindly as a bible without understanding. Therefore, the seek to reinterpret the original meaning to use the constitution as a maluable tool for control of the people, rather than a framework for a government that serves the People. That is, until they find themselves compromised and then role out the ACLU when the original principals and provisions of the Constitution benefit them. Often when the ACLU gets involved, it is the instances where they finally see value in the Constitution and, often against their own objectives, help reinforce it's intent... funny, that. They want their cake....

 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...ational-rifle-association-full-speech-sot.cnn

 

Omar Mateen had training, licensing, and passed background checks including a mental health screening (all part of being a security guard with a license to carry a gun while working as a guard).

 

Why does such not apply evenly across all fifty states? Why do some states have higher levels of homicide than others? Why do some states have very few restrictions on firearms, but also few firearm-related homicides?

As you say, correlation does not equal causation.

 

Agenda based comment alert.

 

So you are saying there is no 100% proof way to keep guns put of the hands of a very determined and capable terrorist? Well....who knew. LOL

 

That certainly qualifies. Though I have heard nothing about guns since

 

What I'm saying is that gun control laws are essentially useless. The ones you proposed would have done nothing to stop the worst mass attack in U.S. history. Why bother with them, then?

 

Almost Nothing in Life is 100% sure.
Although death seems to be a sure thing.

 

Murder is banned in every state in the union. Yet murder exists in every state in the union. By your logic murder laws are useless and should be repealed.

 

Murder is banned ? Golly !!! when did they sneak that one by ?
Thou shalt not murder ring a bell ?
Criminals do not obey Laws.
Cain murdered Abel.

Nobody is suggesting getting rid of all Laws, only that passing Laws against concealed Carry or making it too restictive is wrong.

If Murder is illegal, and Criminals Murder, why would Criminals obey Gun Laws ?

 

Why would they obey murder laws? I am only following the logic of the poster. If laws do not work ....why have them?

 

Some People simply do not obey Laws, Prisons were made for them.

 

Good thing we have laws....so we know who to put in the prisons. LOL

 

Yep, predominately minorities that the Dems are supposedly looking after.