As I said previously, I'm not a huge NRA fan because I don't agree with many of their positions, but I'm about ready to write them a check as they are the main opponent of the anti-gun crowd.
As I said previously, I'm not a huge NRA fan because I don't agree with many of their positions, but I'm about ready to write them a check as they are the main opponent of the anti-gun crowd.Join the NRA!
https://home.nra.org/
But we could march for change in hospitals that would at least put a dent in the number of people they kill, no? We don't have to ban them outright, just pass a few "common sense" regulations. Think of the patients that have a right to live free of the fear of medical malpractice!Gee, I wonder why some people might be for banning guns but not hospitals. Real head scratcher, there.
Then tell us how you would round up all the guns except shotguns? There are already more guns in the US than people, which would make it almost impossible without starting a civil war. The gun culture is too ingrained in the US psyche, as is the idea that Constitutional rights can only be stripped from a person after due process.
You'll get no support from me if your plan is to take away all my rifles and only let me check out a shotgun from a gun club on occasion. And criminals will just laugh at your gun ban while they import guns from elsewhere, assuming the huge supply of guns that already exist in the US ever runs out.
And this whole argument is silly because all long guns combined (shotguns and rifles) account for only a tiny fraction of gun crime and violence. AR-15 rifles are the least of our worries if we really want to put a dent in gun violence.
http://checkyourfact.com/2018/02/20/fact-check-gun-crime-handguns-rifles/
"Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders than rifles were in 2016, according to the UCR data. Handguns killed nine times as many victims as rifles, shotguns, and other guns did combined. The type of firearm used was unknown for about 28 percent of all firearm murders.
Firearms are the most common murder weapon, accounting for over half of the murders each year from 2007 to 2016. The FBI’s UCR shows that 11,004 of the 15,070 murders in 2016 were committed with firearms."
So we need to stop with the whole fear of specific weapons because they are black and scary looking. The idea that certain rifles are too deadly to allow citizens to use is a ridiculous, emotional argument waged by folks who just want an easy answer to this problem. The statistics just don't back it up.
He says that nobody is suggesting banning all guns, so that means he only wants to ban some guns. Then he points out that you can even get a shotgun in the UK, which I assume he feels is a much better situation than what the US currently has.What point are you making here?
He says that nobody is suggesting banning all guns, so that means he only wants to ban some guns. Then he points out that you can even get a shotgun in the UK, which I assume he feels is a much better situation than what the US currently has.
Then I went on and rambled a bit with arguments about why looking to ban "assault rifles" was not even close to the best way to try to reduce gun violence. And how any ban in the US is pretty much doomed to failure, or, at best, just limit the law-abiding in their exercising of the 2A rights.
So what did I say that you didn't understand?
Whatever you say. If something I said was wrong, fell free to call me out on it.Again, what is your actual point? You have made several posts in a row, yet none of them really contain any kind of overall coherent point.
It's just a mishmash of non-sequiturs.
It's pointless to argue or point to facts with these idiots. They run on feels, not anything grounded in reality. We have about 1.1 guns per citizen in this country, which means an easy 350 million. The mass shootings, while horrible, represent a small fraction of a percentage of guns in current circulation. What I'm saying, is if 350 million guns were a problem, we'd know it. I read a democratic site somewhere a couple days ago with a campaign sign that said "repeal the 2nd amendment". I say put your candidates forward and run on that shit. Let us know how that works out. Sounds like a damn good way to lose elections from here to eternity. If we lose the 2nd, there is a very good chance we lose the 1st. That's the way these brown shirts operate.
Nobody is forcing you to prepare for the worst case scenario, but, so long as no laws are broken, your utter garbage opinion doesn't get to stop others from having that option.
We aren't a democracy. We are a constitutional republic and I don't give a damn how they run things in other countries. Our second amendment shall not be infringed, period. That doesn't make me a gun nut, but a citizen who respects our constitutional right to bear arms. Not getting our guns. Forget about it.Deary me.
As for whether 350 million guns are a problem... how many other modern democratic nations have mass shootings like the US do?
We aren't a democracy. We are a constitutional republic and I don't give a damn how they run things in other countries. Our second amendment shall not be infringed, period. That doesn't make me a gun nut, but a citizen who respects our constitutional right to bear arms. Not getting our guns. Forget about it.
How do you propose to accomplish your gun ban, even a partial one? I say it's in all practicality impossible.Yeah no shit. Did you have something to say that actually addresses what I said?
So far your responses to everyone has been boiled down to, "what about..." and, "if it's not perfect then why do it". I mean shit, you just asked about fucking sword violence if guns were banned! Do you think that's a valid argument? Is sword violence much higher in countries that have banned guns?
The only thing you've conceded/agreed upon has been about dealing with mental health. I'm guessing its because you think your mental health won't preclude you from owning guns. Its the least amount of "gun control" you could get behind and its probably the weakest option as well, in terms of effectiveness. Banning anyone with a domestic violence charge would probably be more effective but if you are willing to make all gun purchasers go through mental wellness checks everytime they want to buy guns then I say lets do it.
You can keep telling yourself that but it doesn't make it any more true.
We aren't a democracy. We are a constitutional republic and I don't give a damn how they run things in other countries. Our second amendment shall not be infringed, period. That doesn't make me a gun nut, but a citizen who respects our constitutional right to bear arms. Not getting our guns. Forget about it.
How do you propose to accomplish your gun ban, even a partial one? I say it's in all practicality impossible.
Sword violence aside, how will banning one weapon (assuming it was even possible) get criminally violent people to play nice? I say it won't. So, eventually folks will be screaming to ban all kinds of weapons because they refuse to blame the criminal and, instead, think banning the tool will make evil go away.
Anyone with domestic violence charges against them is already banned from purchasing a gun. It's a questioned asked right on the FBI NCIC background check application. I'm all for stripping folks of their 2A rights, but only if it is done via the courts and due process. Due process is one of the fundamental rights citizens enjoy in this country.
Asking for a mental health evaluation to buy a gun is a violation of a citizen's right to due process, and possibly their privacy as well. We can't let doctors decide if someone can or cannot exercise their 2A right. That's a job for our courts. Not to mention we can't put undue burdens on someone exercising their Constitutional rights, and I think requiring a mental health evaluation is far beyond a reasonable requirement.
Lastly, I don't have to concede or agree with ideas I believe are worthless at actually solving the gun violence crisis. I don't believe there is any plan that will stop motivated criminals/sick/evil folks from getting guns without breaking the 2A and changing what we currently think of as a free society in the US. Banning and rounding up all the guns is the only thing I can think of that would work. If you can figure out how to accomplish that then I am all ears.
Irony not found simply because he isn't willing to give up a Constitutional right you don't find important. Freedom of speech, religion, press, to vote, equality and many other rights are all guaranteed by the Constitution of this nation. Are the folks who enjoy those rights hiding behind the Constitution as well?I see we've crossed the "They run on feels" irony line already. The bolded part pretty much proves that you are a gun nut.
Contrary to what you claim, you clearly don't respect anything at all. You have your favourite little hobby - guns - and because it gives you a sense of self-worth, you'll scramble around looking for excuses not to give it up.
The constitution is merely something you hide behind.
Irony not found simply because he isn't willing to give up a Constitutional right you don't find important. Freedom of speech, religion, press, to vote, equality and many other rights are all guaranteed by the Constitution of this nation. Are the folks who enjoy those rights hiding behind the Constitution as well?
What we don't respect is you telling us which Constitutional rights are important. We differ in opinion and plan to fight you on it with our voices and vote.
Feel that.
Then last assault weapons ban did NOTHING to reduce gun violence. You can't reduce the number of guns in circulation enough to put a dent in the problem without breaking the 2A. If we allow you to ban one class of firearms today you will want more tomorrow. This is why we are fighting you.Lots of words, but still no real overall point.
By placing barriers and restrictions in the way of getting a gun or types of gun, you will reduce the number of guns in circulation. This will have the effect of reducing gun violence.
How do you propose to accomplish your gun ban, even a partial one? I say it's in all practicality impossible.
Sword violence aside, how will banning one weapon (assuming it was even possible) get criminally violent people to play nice? I say it won't. So, eventually folks will be screaming to ban all kinds of weapons because they refuse to blame the criminal and, instead, think banning the tool will make evil go away.
Anyone with domestic violence charges against them is already banned from purchasing a gun. It's a questioned asked right on the FBI NCIC background check application. I'm all for stripping folks of their 2A rights, but only if it is done via the courts and due process. Due process is one of the fundamental rights citizens enjoy in this country.
Asking for a mental health evaluation to buy a gun is a violation of a citizen's right to due process, and possibly their privacy as well. We can't let doctors decide if someone can or cannot exercise their 2A right. That's a job for our courts. Not to mention we can't put undue burdens on someone exercising their Constitutional rights, and I think requiring a mental health evaluation is far beyond a reasonable requirement.
Lastly, I don't have to concede or agree with ideas I believe are worthless at actually solving the gun violence crisis. I don't believe there is any plan that will stop motivated criminals/sick/evil folks from getting guns without breaking the 2A and changing what we currently think of as a free society in the US. Banning and rounding up all the guns is the only thing I can think of that would work. If you can figure out how to accomplish that then I am all ears.
I see we've crossed the "They run on feels" irony line already. The bolded part pretty much proves that you are a gun nut.
Contrary to what you claim, you clearly don't respect anything at all. You have your favourite little hobby - guns - and because it gives you a sense of self-worth, you'll scramble around looking for excuses not to give it up.
The constitution is merely something you hide behind.
Because he disagrees with you doesn't invalidate his argument or make him "running on feels." Running on feels is a stupid thing to say to try and nullify your opponents argument without actually refuting it.Erm, what?
The irony is when he himself said "They fun on feels" before 'running on feels' himself five minutes later.
Then last assault weapons ban did NOTHING to reduce gun violence. You can't reduce the number of guns in circulation enough to put a dent in the problem without breaking the 2A. If we allow you to ban one class of firearms today you will want more tomorrow. This is why we are fighting you.
Because he disagrees with you doesn't invalidate his argument or make him "running on feels." Running on feels is a stupid thing to say to try and nullify your opponents argument without actually refuting it.
So I stand by what I wrote in reply to your specific post.
I've already answered that. It may reduce the number of guns in circulation somewhat, but you will not be able to reduce the number of guns sufficiently to reduce gun violence without breaking the 2A. It would require almost complete banning of all guns and forcefully rounding up the 350 million guns already in circulation to put a real dent in gun violence. I don't know how you could accomplish this.Do you agree or disagree with the following:
By placing barriers and restrictions in the way of getting a gun or types of gun, you will reduce the number of guns in circulation. This will have the effect of reducing gun violence.
If you agree, then how about this:
Is reducing gun violence a good thing?