U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-06-2015, 10:44 AM
 
Location: NJ
16,831 posts, read 11,772,825 times
Reputation: 10826

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
2A aside, what laws that arent already on the books would you like to see implemented?
If the issue trying to be resolved, is to eliminate the bulk of firearm deaths, then the answer is not piling restrictive gun law on top of gun law. there is a point of diminishing return.


the answer needs to include gun laws, but in no way is restrictive firearm legislation the complete answer liberals and legislators make it out to be.


Unfortunately the liberal response is myopic. It ignores perspective in an effort to achieve a theoretical politcal agenda item, no guns no deaths. The down side is the liberals are willing to ignore the daily death toll to reach that distant future goal.


9 year old children be dammed, full speed ahead, piloted by a blind driver.


Who would look at a complex problem and focus on one aspect, to the exclusion of the other variables???????????????????? someone with a political agenda, that's who!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-06-2015, 10:58 AM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,756,382 times
Reputation: 5419
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
No worries. You probably don't know that the US Supreme Court defined exactly what the 2nd Amendments means at the beginning of the 21st Century.
i.e. Individual Americans are allowed to own guns, governments (local & federal) absolutely can't pass laws that infringe on that right.

Not true. The court affirmed the right of the individual to a self defense weapon. It also affirmed the right of government to regulate fire arms.

The remaining issue is where to draw the line. Could government outlaw hand guns? Possibly. But perhaps not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2015, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,312 posts, read 17,555,753 times
Reputation: 15475
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Not true. The court affirmed the right of the individual to a self defense weapon. It also affirmed the right of government to regulate fire arms.

The remaining issue is where to draw the line. Could government outlaw hand guns? Possibly. But perhaps not.
They could more readily legislate mandatory gun ownership. Which of course would do far more to stop violent crimes and Islamic terror.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2015, 12:24 PM
Status: "Trump: Comrade!" (set 14 days ago)
 
10,487 posts, read 6,185,236 times
Reputation: 7223
I would like to see certain classes of guns prohibited, like the AR-15 assault rifle.

If one is interested in protecting his or her home, then there are plenty of weapons that will do the job. We have two shotguns and a handgun, which will suffice.

Constitutionally, I disagree with those who believe that the 'right to bear arms' means that literally every type of 'arm' is sacred. One may easily prohibit certain types of weapons (machine gun, etc) with the citizens of this country still having a massive choice of self-defense weapons. It is rather childish to proclaim that if one cannot purchase one particular weapon then their constitutional right is being violated.

The Constitution also has a prohibition regarding the freedom of speech, but there are, even then, certain limitations.

Those that wish to kill a lot of people quickly, should have their choices more limited (not being able to purchase AR-15s, etc). Those that are interested in self-defense have a wide variety of weapons at their disposal.

I recognize that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are plenty of AR-15s in private hands, so a 'ban' on such will not affect those that already own one (including budding mass killers). Yet, in the years to come, perhaps it will save some lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2015, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Minnysoda
8,592 posts, read 8,507,933 times
Reputation: 5166
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
I would like to see certain classes of guns prohibited, like the AR-15 assault rifle.

If one is interested in protecting his or her home, then there are plenty of weapons that will do the job. We have two shotguns and a handgun, which will suffice.

Constitutionally, I disagree with those who believe that the 'right to bear arms' means that literally every type of 'arm' is sacred. One may easily prohibit certain types of weapons (machine gun, etc) with the citizens of this country still having a massive choice of self-defense weapons. It is rather childish to proclaim that if one cannot purchase one particular weapon then their constitutional right is being violated.

The Constitution also has a prohibition regarding the freedom of speech, but there are, even then, certain limitations.

Those that wish to kill a lot of people quickly, should have their choices more limited (not being able to purchase AR-15s, etc). Those that are interested in self-defense have a wide variety of weapons at their disposal.

I recognize that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are plenty of AR-15s in private hands, so a 'ban' on such will not affect those that already own one (including budding mass killers). Yet, in the years to come, perhaps it will save some lives.

DO you understand what 5 or six rounds of 12 gauge OO buck will do in a closed room?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2015, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Florida
22,144 posts, read 9,416,611 times
Reputation: 18087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Those on the terrorist watch list should not be allowed to purchase any guns.

Ban assault weapons.

Gun registry database.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrat View Post
Remember, lets keep emotion out of this.

That said, you don't see any problem with a secret government list removing constitutional rights from a citizen without any due process?
What if they removed other rights like freedom of speech, or religion.

bill
That is not what I posted. Your emotion is showing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2015, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,833 posts, read 5,835,557 times
Reputation: 3404
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
I would like to see certain classes of guns prohibited, like the AR-15 assault rifle.

If one is interested in protecting his or her home, then there are plenty of weapons that will do the job. We have two shotguns and a handgun, which will suffice.

Constitutionally, I disagree with those who believe that the 'right to bear arms' means that literally every type of 'arm' is sacred. One may easily prohibit certain types of weapons (machine gun, etc) with the citizens of this country still having a massive choice of self-defense weapons. It is rather childish to proclaim that if one cannot purchase one particular weapon then their constitutional right is being violated.

The Constitution also has a prohibition regarding the freedom of speech, but there are, even then, certain limitations.

Those that wish to kill a lot of people quickly, should have their choices more limited (not being able to purchase AR-15s, etc). Those that are interested in self-defense have a wide variety of weapons at their disposal.

I recognize that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are plenty of AR-15s in private hands, so a 'ban' on such will not affect those that already own one (including budding mass killers). Yet, in the years to come, perhaps it will save some lives.
Do you believe in reading tea leaves? I do... I have read them and I am going to tell you the foreseeable future. The president will come out and demand a ban. This will bring about mass hysteria buying by people who would ordinarily even consider buying a firearm of any kind. Frankly, some of these people have no business owning one, but they will, thanks to the threat of a ban. Over the last 7 years, more weapons have been sold than at any time in history, all thanks to threatened gun bans and gun restrictions. So go ahead and continue the call for gun bans and new gun laws and continue helping the president distribute even more weapons to the general uneducated public......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2015, 12:41 PM
 
10,328 posts, read 10,330,395 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford View Post
DO you understand what 5 or six rounds of 12 gauge OO buck will do in a closed room?
I think he does.

We have two shotguns and a handgun, which will suffice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2015, 12:42 PM
 
10,328 posts, read 10,330,395 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
Do you believe in reading tea leaves? I do... I have read them and I am going to tell you the foreseeable future. The president will come out and demand a ban. This will bring about mass hysteria buying by people who would ordinarily even consider buying a firearm of any kind. Frankly, some of these people have no business owning one, but they will, thanks to the threat of a ban. Over the last 7 years, more weapons have been sold than at any time in history, all thanks to threatened gun bans and gun restrictions. So go ahead and continue the call for gun bans and new gun laws and continue helping the president distribute even more weapons to the general uneducated public......
All this gun banning stuff has been pumped up by the NRA!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2015, 12:51 PM
 
78,298 posts, read 33,369,189 times
Reputation: 15670
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
I would like to see certain classes of guns prohibited, like the AR-15 assault rifle.

If one is interested in protecting his or her home, then there are plenty of weapons that will do the job. We have two shotguns and a handgun, which will suffice.

Constitutionally, I disagree with those who believe that the 'right to bear arms' means that literally every type of 'arm' is sacred. One may easily prohibit certain types of weapons (machine gun, etc) with the citizens of this country still having a massive choice of self-defense weapons. It is rather childish to proclaim that if one cannot purchase one particular weapon then their constitutional right is being violated.

The Constitution also has a prohibition regarding the freedom of speech, but there are, even then, certain limitations.

Those that wish to kill a lot of people quickly, should have their choices more limited (not being able to purchase AR-15s, etc). Those that are interested in self-defense have a wide variety of weapons at their disposal.

I recognize that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are plenty of AR-15s in private hands, so a 'ban' on such will not affect those that already own one (including budding mass killers). Yet, in the years to come, perhaps it will save some lives.
How do you propose limiting fertilizer? The 2nd wasn't put in place to protect people from the government also.....

Argue all day that it would be harder to do today and it still won't matter. Nothing has changed to change the reasons the 2nd was out in place. It was a simple acknowledgment that people had a natural right that the government had no right infringing upon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:53 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top