so the gun owners would fight the non-gun owners or the military, who would be enforcing this?
My money is on the military.
How is the nra a terrorist organization?We don't need to abolish the Second Amendment or attempt to ban guns. We do need to declare the NRA the terrorist organization that they've become over the last 35 years or so. Really we just need to interpret the Second Amendment the way it was written, intended to be interpreted, and was interpreted for the first 200 years of its existence.
Also, the restrictions on the CDC to study gun violence need to be lifted. Unfortunately the GOP knows if the CDC studies gun violence the results will prove that improved gun control will be beneficial, and the GOPs NRA masters won't allow that. And since the NRA WANTS there to be more violence and death at the hands of firearms, they can't have anything happen that might fix the problem. Because then they might not be able to pedal fear into people buying more guns.
Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every mass killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24VA0tTTsvM
No one needs to own a firearm whose only design is to kill people.
Which is why I always find it funny when someone thinks our military would slaughter their own in the event of rebellion. It's not going to happen. There would be a military coup at most to put the government back into the hands of the people.
Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every mass killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.
There is no "good of their fellow citizens", since it wouldn't do anything to stop criminals and terrorists. And no, I'm not giving up shit or my constitutional rights so some delusional idiot can feel safer.It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
Says who? That's exactly what I want a firearm to be designed for. If some numbnut thinks it's not "needed" he doesn't have to buy or own a firearm. I'll make my own choices, thanks.No one needs to own a firearm whose only design is to kill people.
We don't need to abolish the Second Amendment or attempt to ban guns. We do need to declare the NRA the terrorist organization that they've become over the last 35 years or so.
Really we just need to interpret the Second Amendment the way it was written, intended to be interpreted, and was interpreted for the first 200 years of its existence.
Also, the restrictions on the CDC to study gun violence need to be lifted. Unfortunately the GOP knows if the CDC studies gun violence the results will prove that improved gun control will be beneficial
And since the NRA WANTS there to be more violence and death at the hands of firearms
Because then they might not be able to pedal fear into people buying more guns.
Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every mass killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24VA0tTTsvM
No one needs to own a firearm whose only design is to kill people.
In real practice I always find this argument hilarious....and delusional.
If the gvt had a reason to "go against someone", do you think that them owning guns would stop them? Do you think that in a hypothetical scenario of a clash of "the people" vs. "the government" the people have a chance, even with them owning guns?
Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every mass killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24VA0tTTsvM
No one needs to own a firearm whose only design is to kill people.
Fuck off commie. Go back to your collective and stfu.
I do, because I may need to kill people. *shrug*
Personally, I am of the opinion that the cat is out of the bag. I just don't see how one can at this late date in our history, one that includes a high level of penetration of the love of firearms, can be undone or even why one would expect law abiding and responsible people like myself who own firearms, to want to surrender them. A huge industry exists that caters to the gun enthusiast and to hunting, target shooting and family plinking. I think you would have better luck and infinitely better success reducing gun violence, if, instead. we poured our resources into raising happy healthy children. The desire to kill is the result of self hate, a mental disease, a disease we all have and will not admit, and the greater the denial and repression of those kinds of feelings the more killing we will have. Humanity is sick and in deep need of love and understanding. We have been killing each other long before the invention of rocks.
Hey OP ever thought about moving to Mexico? They have much more stringent gun laws than the U.S.
If you are going to be shot or killed by American guns what would be the point?
Oh you were saying to go to Mexico because they have a better health care system to cover those injuries.
If you are getting killed by a Mexican cartel it's more likely to be at the end of an AK-47 than an American gun. Unless you are saying Russia has a AK-47 manufacturing plant in the United States that isn't following gun regulations.
Hey OP ever thought about moving to Mexico? They have much more stringent gun laws than the U.S.
Really we just need to interpret the Second Amendment the way it was written, intended to be interpreted, and was interpreted for the first 200 years of its existence.
Your IQ is somewhere in the vicinity of 90, isn't it?
Why is it OK to remove the problem you see, and not the problem we see?