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.
There were no murders in Palo Alto for the last four years I believe. There are dozens of large cities without a single murder, some of them in states where open-carry is legal and there are no restrictions on guns. It ain't the gun.
Crime is more closely related to demographics than anything else, but it's absurd to say that "open carry" reduces crime. Nevada is an open carry state and has the 3rd highest violent crime rate in the nation.
True, but I still don't see why there shouldn't be gun registration laws and background checks, and why there shouldn't be efforts to make the buying and selling of black market guns as risky as possible. (Every criminal should have good reason to fear that the person they are dealing with is an undercover ATF agent seeking to reduce black market gun traffic.)
If someone were literally proposing to take all guns away from private citizens, then I would see a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment, and I would be one of the people strongly supporting the 2nd Amendment. I understand the "slippery slop" fear that gun registration could potentially lead to gun confiscation on a wide scale, but I think this is primarily a scare tactic. I'm pretty sure that, realistically, the vast majority of people can see the difference between gun regulations and indiscriminate gun confiscation, and that a full-scale revolution would occur if the government literally started going door-to-door to confiscate guns from average citizens. (Especially these days. If there is even one single instance of the government showing up to snatch the legally-owned gun of a law-abiding citizen, the event would go viral and the whole world would know about it within minutes.)
LOL, the "gun registration laws" is the missing tool that the government needs to propose taking guns away from private citizens..... So you would be up in arms if the government were to confiscate guns, but you want to give them the tool they would need to do it in the meantime? Doesn't make much sense....
Besides, "gun confiscation" is a bit of a straw-man argument anyway, and it's used by both sides. It's true that no door-to-door confiscation is ever going to happen in this country, the gun control supporters are correct in that regard, but on the other hand, all the government would have to do is ban the sale and manufacture of ammunition to accomplish the same effect, and in that regard, gun rights supports are right to be .
They deal with those issues every day whether it be profiling or discrimination.
.
I didn't say they don't deal with those issues, I said that they don't deal with them in the same way. Sorry, but a law that arbitrarily prevents someone from flying on a plane, will not be looked at or judged in the same way by the courts as a law that prevents someone from exercising an enumerated constitutional right.
Ummmm - not really First - Zuckerberg has banned those kinds of ads from FB. One or two might slip through, but you'll get busted and tracked.
Second - you can't "mail guns" to someone's home very easily. If you do, there may be someone waiting in the bushes when the mailman arrives. The laws are already on the books that interstate gun sales must include a Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer. The gun is shipped to him/her and then delivered to you, usually after a Background check is done. Sure, you may be able to make contact, make surreptitious arrangements, meet them somewhere in the middle, thereby getting around the already strict laws in place.... SOOOO --- if you HAVE gotten around those very strict laws... well then essentially you are saying that laws don't matter, ergo, Obama's new "laws" and suggestions thereof have no teeth, and are therefore useless.
I thought that as well, but turns out I was wrong. Those pages are still alive and well and thriving. I should know, I belong to about five of them.
Exactly! Those are not "internet transactions". They are local face-to-face transactions.
Fascilitated by the internet...
Quote:
Ask any LEO in Washington State how they have been doing policing such transactions in their state in the one year+ since I-.594 became law! Ask them how many prosecutions there have been in the one year+ for not doing the required background check.
I guarantee you will not like the answers!
I have no doubt that you're right and I agree this kind of law isn't all that enforceable.... But I think you're asking the wrong question. I think the better question to ask is, how many gun sellers, who want to abide by the law, have run background checks on their buyers who otherwise might not have if it weren't for I-594 passing? That's the relevant question.
It's true universal background checks can't be enforced from a law enforcement perspective, but it's also true that most gun owners want to abide by the law, hence the "law-abiding gun owner"....right? So since they're law abiding, they will probably willingly follow the law that says they have to run a background check on their buyer. It'd be real easy for a felon to show up at a gun show and buy from a private seller, or for a felon to buy from a private seller on the internet, but with universal background checks, a lot of law abiding gun owners will run background checks on their buyers who otherwise wouldn't have, because it's the law, and they are happy to follow the law. No, it won't keep all criminals from buying a gun, but it WILL make it harder.
LOL, the "gun registration laws" is the missing tool that the government needs to propose taking guns away from private citizens..... So you would be up in arms if the government were to confiscate guns, but you want to give them the tool they would need to do it in the meantime? Doesn't make much sense....
Besides, "gun confiscation" is a bit of a straw-man argument anyway, and it's used by both sides. It's true that no door-to-door confiscation is ever going to happen in this country, the gun control supporters are correct in that regard, but on the other hand, all the government would have to do is ban the sale and manufacture of ammunition to accomplish the same effect, and in that regard, gun rights supports are right to be .
Crime is more closely related to demographics than anything else, but it's absurd to say that "open carry" reduces crime. Nevada is an open carry state and has the 3rd highest violent crime rate in the nation.
I never made the correlation. I simply pointed out that the presence of guns doesn't result in increased crime.
As to the issue of demographics, maybe we should just ban guns for those demographics committing crime!
LOL, the "gun registration laws" is the missing tool that the government needs to propose taking guns away from private citizens..... So you would be up in arms if the government were to confiscate guns, but you want to give them the tool they would need to do it in the meantime? Doesn't make much sense....
Besides, "gun confiscation" is a bit of a straw-man argument anyway, and it's used by both sides. It's true that no door-to-door confiscation is ever going to happen in this country, the gun control supporters are correct in that regard, but on the other hand, all the government would have to do is ban the sale and manufacture of ammunition to accomplish the same effect, and in that regard, gun rights supports are right to be .
It has already been determined, it is not an arm, without ammo.
It is just a wooden and steel club. That would be a violation of our right to arm ourselves.
I'm aware of those small-scale incidents and several others, but I'm talking about this foreshadowing of a grand confiscation on a national level.
Not going to happen. Not only would it be impossible, but also impractical. It would put LEO's in danger and cost billions of dollars. Why would the government risk that kind of blood and treasure when they could simply pass a law banning the sale and manufacture of ammunition for the civilian market, and have the same effect that confiscation would have?
I'm aware of those small-scale incidents and several others, but I'm talking about this foreshadowing of a grand confiscation on a national level.
Not going to happen. Not only would it be impossible, but also impractical. It would put LEO's in danger and cost billions of dollars. Why would the government risk that kind of blood and treasure when they could simply pass a law banning the sale and manufacture of ammunition for the civilian market, and have the same effect that confiscation would have?
The police and military would refuse anyway. And you are right, they would stop the sale of ammo. If they also stopped the sale of primers, even reloading would be impossible.
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.
