Gun control or control the criminally insane? (drug, FBI, Schumer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who is "they" and can you show me documentation from a credible source to back up these claims?
I'm sure that someone out there wants to ban all guns, just like there are folks who want to legalize all weapons for purchase by the ordinary citizen, but these are extreme positions that have no real possibility of becoming law.
Would Dianne Feinstein do?
"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
Interestingly enough,she has a concealed carry permit.And was at one time the only person in all of San Francisco to have one...
And I've never owned a AR-15, or an assault rifle, unless you count my military service. Personally I think thats a **** poor gun, and I can take out far more with my browning 30-06 with my scope from a decent range than I ever could with that piece of crap gun they gave me.
70% of Americans own guns, I believe (its been a while since I've looked that up), as such, most of us would never stand for a ban on all weapons. Again, I'm not fighting for or against another AWB. If that came up again (it never will), then I would urge my elected representation to vote against a blatant ban, but if there is a way that a responsible person can take a course on how to use the weapon, then I'd support that legislation.
And its not a crystal ball, its reality. Much like most Americans support the right to choose.
People who say the government are coming after all weapons are no better or worse than the people that say that the government will ban abortions outright again.
These are not in the realm of reality.
So, were you using 20 rnd magazines in the military? I don't know when you served but the designs and parts have been refined and are much, much better than even 10 yrs. ago. Yes, bolt rifles can be superior for certain applications though those are not usually for CQB. There are a few people who can manually run a bolt as fast as a semi-auto can cycle while staying on target, but it is a rare skill indeed.
Who determines "reasonable"? Does the 2nd Amendment state that the right to keep and bear arms applies to only those who pass a course?
Do you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment helps the weakest citizens protect themselves both in and outside of their homes? Is it reasonable to tell a 90 yr. old WWII vet that because he cannot attend a class he has no basic right of self defense? What about his wife? Should she be allowed to defend herself at point blank range from an assault in the grocery store parking lot?
That's in a 30 second google search, feel free to research more.
20 years ago, who would have though the Clinton gun ban would have a chance of passing? The reason things aren't even worse for gun owners than they are is due to groups like the NRA, GOA and JFPO.
None of those are federal bans, and I don't live in St. Louis, San Fransisco (seriously did you expect different?) or in Los Angeles.
How about federal bans? I don't tell other states what laws they should or shouldn't pass, I just wouldn't move there.
"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
Interestingly enough,she has a concealed carry permit.And was at one time the only person in all of San Francisco to have one...
One big word there IF.
And at the time I wasn't eligible to vote, so my voice didn't matter at that time. I would oppose the same legislation today, on a federal or local to me level.
So, were you using 20 rnd magazines in the military? I don't know when you served but the designs and parts have been refined and are much, much better than even 10 yrs. ago. Yes, bolt rifles can be superior for certain applications though those are not usually for CQB. There are a few people who can manually run a bolt as fast as a semi-auto can cycle while staying on target, but it is a rare skill indeed.
Who determines "reasonable"? Does the 2nd Amendment state that the right to keep and bear arms applies to only those who pass a course?
Do you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment helps the weakest citizens protect themselves both in and outside of their homes? Is it reasonable to tell a 90 yr. old WWII vet that because he cannot attend a class he has no basic right of self defense? What about his wife? Should she be allowed to defend herself at point blank range from an assault in the grocery store parking lot?
Heres the argument in its essence.
I don't have a bolt action, mines semi-auto, dads is a bolt action he wanted to have a gun like the "man with no eyes".
But back to the argument on the 2nd amendment.
You're saying that the 2nd amendment should be taken at its word. Fine, but do you also support that full application done to all amendments, also the first amendment.
Per the first amendment, someone could put up pictures of people having sex in front of their house, and there is nothing you, I, or anyone else can do about it. But we have decided that you have a freedom of speech, with restriction to nudity or yelling fire in a crowded theater.
So if we are going to go strictly by the words of the second amendment, then we need to open up a hell of a lot more than just that. Also, note, that marijuana, meth, cocaine, etc aren't illegal in the constitution either.
We can't use the "2nd amendment" says this argument without looking at how we've broadly interpreted the rest of the constitution.
I'm a constructionist, I'd like to strict to the words in the constitution, but that'd mean a whole lot of things that the conservative party has stood for would fall over night, drugs, prostitution, free speech, "military actions", etc.
You asked who 'they' were and for proof,it has been provided.
I think you might be interested in this......
Quote:
Sen. Chuck Schumer says if someone admits illegal drug use to a federal official, he should not be allowed to buy a gun.
The New York Democrat suggests that military recruiters and other officials report admissions of drug use to a national database.
Gun ownership should be severely restricted or better yet, totally banned. That is the only way the US can become as safe as other developed nations. Americans have to realize that guns are the root of the problem, not the other way around.
I just spent the last 4 weeks in England and I can tell you that having guns almost totally banned is the dumbest idea on this earth. Criminals still have access to firearms in that country and the UK has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the earth and coincidentally, the crime rate is much higher than in Switzerland, which is almost American in its gun laws so I don't know where you get your facts from.
I read that. I disagree with it, but its just a Senator speaking his mine.
I don't live in NY, you live in SC. If your Senator said it, or my Senator said it, then we'd have a beef. But we don't get to tell the good people of NY who they have to vote for.
If Chuck Schumer put that to a vote (which won't happen), then I would tell Mark Rubio and others to oppose it. I have little doubt they'd do that anyway.
Remember, legislation has been purposed by Republicans and Democrats in the past that are just looney, like acknowledging 9/11 truthers for instance, but as long as my representation doesn't support it, then its none of my business.
I read that. I disagree with it, but its just a Senator speaking his mine.
I don't live in NY, you live in SC. If your Senator said it, or my Senator said it, then we'd have a beef. But we don't get to tell the good people of NY who they have to vote for.
If Chuck Schumer put that to a vote (which won't happen), then I would tell Mark Rubio and others to oppose it. I have little doubt they'd do that anyway.
Remember, legislation has been purposed by Republicans and Democrats in the right that are just looney, like acknowledging 9/11 truthers for instance, but as long as my representation doesn't support it, then its none of my business.
Ever actually read the BATFE form 4473 when purchasing a firearm before you sign it? What Sen. Schumer, you, and others either don't seem to know, or have perhaps forgotten, is that drug users (regardless of conviction status) cannot legally purchase a firearm. If they do and lie on the form 4473 it is a crime prosecutable as a felony.
Schumer isn't calling for this to be voted on,he is calling on the BATFE to make this part of the background check process.
No need for a vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
