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.
it depends on HOW the government did away with the second amendment.
if it was done through peaceful and legal means, then perhaps you would have a 40-45% turn in rate.
if on the other hand the government just up and declared the second amendment null and void, then the turn in rate would be rather interesting to say the least. chances are the populace would tell the government that they would get community property, we keep the guns, the government gets the bullets, to be turned in, in what ever manner the people choose.
That was just to "register" semi-auto rifles.
An order to turn in all guns would go largely ignored.
If such an order was enforced, things would get really ugly.
If the goal is to reduce "gun violence," initiating a
bloodbath kinda seems counterproductive.
That was just to "register" semi-auto rifles.
An order to turn in all guns would go largely ignored.
If such an order was enforced, things would get really ugly.
If the goal is to reduce "gun violence," initiating a
bloodbath kinda seems counterproductive.
WTH, now it is considered an "infringement of rights" to merely REGISTER your SEMI-AUTO RIFLES??!! People NEED these like they NEED a hit of smack!
What 26 yo needs to have THIRTEEN automatic guns registered to him??! That's one for every 6 months he was alive!
How about we merely limit the AMOUNT of auto-weapons owned??
How about we merely limit the AMOUNT of auto-weapons owned??
And this would have done what to prevent what happened?
FYI, get your terminology correct. Automatic weapons are extremely expensive, require substantial amount of paperwork and there is limited number of states you can possess one. They have been involved with only a handful of murders over decades.
And this would have done what to prevent what happened?
FYI, get your terminology correct. Automatic weapons are extremely expensive, require substantial amount of paperwork and there is limited number of states you can possess one. They have been involved with only a handful of murders over decades.
Sorry, i typoed out the "semi." So shoot me.
Whatever. Lets just talk about "things that can kill people with bullets and hold at least 6 of them at a time."
1. Off the top of my head, since the shooter brought SIX guns to the scene, all legally registered to him, i'm guessing that he used more than one (although i cannot seem to get any info on that online.) Simple deduction tells me that AT LEAST, the one(s) to kill others and the one to kill self were different.
2. CARRYING SIX GUNS would "empower" ANYONE, planning a mass shooting or otherwise. No one needs to be "empowered" in such a way. ESPECIALLY "self-righteous, black & white, and paranoid thinkers" which most gun owners (at least on this board) seem to be.
The death toll in most other incidents is the same or higher where the shooter has one or two weapons. To be quite honest carrying anything more than one rifle and perhaps one or two pistols is giant hindrance unless you are expecting to defend yourself in fixed position.
I'll ask you again, what would this do to prevent this from happening again?
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.
