Mims said the Safety for All Act is a “catchy name” but, “the voters shouldn’t be fooled.” She said it would create a $25 million bureaucracy to regulate the sale of ammunition and require purchasers to buy a license, which they would have to renew every two years.
“There is nothing in this legislation that would exempt law enforcement officers,” she pointed out.
“Small agencies don’t have the resources” to enforce the measure, Dadian said. “Large agencies don’t have the resources.”
He said it would divert police work away from fighting crime to enforcing regulations.
Binnewies said the measure would be onerous for rural county residents, who need firearms for self-defense. He said the 10-round restriction could prevent homeowners from defending themselves against multiple home invaders.
Stallard said the Safety for All measure would provide “safety for none,” and would disproportionately hurt “poor people and urban dwellers.”
“It’s no better than the poll tax or a literacy test” used to discriminate against black voters in the Jim Crow South, she said.
Tools are tools. However, there are tools which are used for such acts that there really isn't any other way to classify them except as destructive/evil (Nazi gas chambers). A gun may be used in the case of self defense, which is fine, but it is still used performing action as as a tool to either hurt or threaten future hurt.
It is a small minority that is causing the problem. But what advantage does owning a handgun give oneself? Does it improve your standard of living? Quality of life? No it does nothing of this sort.
People will say that it gives you protection but that point is moot if everyone you are trying to protect yourself from also has a gun (arguably you are less safe). Simply put if there is no violence/violent people a gun is near meaningless for defensive purposes. Likewise if everyone has a gun nobody is safe.
Solving gang violence and getting gang members to stop killing one another is a difficult and complex problem.
In my opinion the issue isn't so much gun ownership but the gun mentality in the USA (which you nicely illustrated). Its the "I'm going to shoot someone cause they walked on my lawn attitude."
But nobody has given a real fundamental reason why guns should be part of modern society.
The stats none of the media or political retards want to bring up.. F Newsome..
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
Tools are tools. However, there are tools which are used for such acts that there really isn't any other way to classify them except as destructive/evil (Nazi gas chambers). A gun may be used in the case of self defense, which is fine, but it is still used performing action as as a tool to either hurt or threaten future hurt.
It is a small minority that is causing the problem. But what advantage does owning a handgun give oneself? Does it improve your standard of living? Quality of life? No it does nothing of this sort. People will say that it gives you protection but that point is moot if everyone you are trying to protect yourself from also has a gun (arguably you are less safe). Simply put if there is no violence/violent people a gun is near meaningless for defensive purposes. Likewise if everyone has a gun nobody is safe.
Perfect!
Damned well said.I work in Nashville. We have latino gangs, Kurdish gangs, Laotian gangs, Crips, Bloods, Vice Lords you name it. Not only do these gang members create a threat... the users of their products are the ones who get addicted and have to feed their addictions through robbery. I will not be a victim of these people. If Hillary makes me turn in my handguns then all it does is leave those tweaked out drug users with less fear of being confronted by an armed citizen.
Just look at one U.S. city Chicago. Do you think it is law abiding NRA members killing each other? Every weekend there are murders and dozens of non fatal shootings related to gangs and drugs. Even if every legal weapon was confiscated in the U.S. and every gun store closed, there is such a financial incentive for these gangs to protect their turf that they will get their hands on guns. I am not sure you have ever noticed the porous southern U.S. border.
In Tennessee we have the castle doctrine, which allows me to use deadly force if someone threatens me in my home. You also hear of stand your ground laws. If I were at home and I heard someone breaking into my car... if I ran out and shot and killed the robber, I would be charged with murder. Now if I yelled at the robber and they raised a gun in my direction, I would have the legal right to use deadly force. Despite what you think, we cannot go around shooting people if we simply feel threatened. There has to actually be an imminent threat to my life before I could use deadly force. Otherwise off to prison or lose everything when i get sued by the person I shot.
I go back to my reply located above. Would you care to compare drug use/gang membership statistics between the U.S. and Canada (or any first world nation for that matter). Look, the gun violence issue in the U.S. is overblown. We have a much bigger mental health and drug/gang problem. Remove the major metropolitan areas (ironically with tough anti-gun laws but large gang populations) from those gun violence statistics and the U.S. falls way down this list.
And yes the constitution was written in the 18th century. We live in a different world with terrorists and such. Should I give up all my rights under the constitution to make it easier for the government to keep me safe? Should I allow the government to monitor my house, my email, my communications without my consent because we live in the 21st century and we have different threats to our security? Should the government just be able to round people up citizens and send them to gitmo without a trial and for a indefinite amount of time... well because of those different threats? No, we have the constitution to protect us. As I said before, the constitution is meant to limit the power of the government, not the people. One of those things that prevents an out of control government is the second amendment.
And yes I know we are a civilized first world nation... but if you have not noticed the U.S. political system is very corrupt. We have a small problem with greed and frankly this makes me never trust the government.
So the point of all of this is that all of these gun control measures do nothing to stop the real issue of gun violence in the U.S. Plain and simple. I have zero worries about dying in a gun fight with an armed neighbor. I enjoy visiting the in-laws cabin and going out and shooting in the wood with my 75 round drum.
Improve mental health access, crack down on people who have guns that are not legally able to own one, move toward the national legalization of marijuana (reduce financial incentives for gang violence). All these things will go further that a state worrying about whether I should not be able to own a magazine that holds over 10 rounds.
Proggies judge each other only by their shared "good" intentions.Up for vote right now.
In support of the ammo bill, lying politician claims 17,000 children will be shot this year!
How do they get away with such bullshit?!?!?!
“Gun violence has reached epidemic proportions across our nation,” Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles) told his colleagues.
“We cannot stand by while our communities suffer from this horrific violence,” he said. “These proposals take common sense steps to keep weapons and ammunition out of the hands of criminals.”
When a politician describes something as common sense it is almost invariably nonsensical.Actually no, it has gone down.
Just because you say they are common sense, doesn't make them common sense.