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.
Well at min. democrats take the blame here for exporting violence and supporting the military industrial complex...same as that other party they are always blaming
Gun violence might differ from state to state, but gun laws shouldn't. People are either a lawful gun owner or they are not, having gun laws vary from state to state only hurt Americans by giving them laws that change based on their location.
Might "hurt" to a point, but maybe not as much as federal mandates that keep people in different states from doing more as their state seems inclined. Take Utah, for example, where apparently the folks in that state want to seriously restrict the sale/consumption of alcohol. Should they not have that right or freedom to decide along those lines as they wish?
When yes, when no? Just saying...
If the way to go is your way, should the federal laws related to gun control be reflective of the most restrictive state laws or less restrictive? Would that "hurt" Americans in general more or less? Better, I think, to let the states decide based on what it seems best suits the people in those states where lifestyles, crime and a good many other issues and considerations vary significantly.
Really? How much are you really for the rights of gun owners?
How do you feel about the fact that many states ban:
1. automatic weapons
2. high capacity magazines
3. silencers
4. high capacity magazines
5. importation of weapons labeled "assault weapons"
If you are not against "citizens owning guns", these issues would be fine with you. However, most liberal politicians seek to increase gun restrictions, indepenedent of current registration laws.
There it is! I think yet another thread is quickly getting swallowed by the gun enthusiasts who can't seem to spend much time in any thread before the gun control debate is forced front-and-center for everyone to rehash over and over and over. Shouldn't be long now that we get the bit about the 2A...
Might "hurt" to a point, but maybe not as much as federal mandates that keep people in different states from doing more as their state seems inclined. Take Utah, for example, where apparently the folks in that state want to seriously restrict the sale/consumption of alcohol. Should they not have that right or freedom to decide along those lines as they wish?
When yes, when no? Just saying...
If the way to go is your way, should the federal laws related to gun control be reflective of the most restrictive state laws or less restrictive? Would that "hurt" Americans in general more or less? Better, I think, to let the states decide based on what it seems best suits the people in those states where lifestyles, crime and a good many other issues and considerations vary significantly.
Minus the amendment about prohibition, there really isn't much in our Constitution or Amendments about the regulation of alcohol, so that I can see being a state issue. As for guns, it is in our Constitution, and it makes no sense having 50 different sets of laws in regards to guns when someone could just as easily go over to a state with lax gun laws and take them back to their heavily regulated state. It basically defeats the purpose of state gun laws, and makes it more of a danger for Americans since it basically promotes illegal gun trading.
Really? How much are you really for the rights of gun owners?
How do you feel about the fact that many states ban:
1. automatic weapons
2. high capacity magazines
3. silencers
4. high capacity magazines
5. importation of weapons labeled "assault weapons"
If you are not against "citizens owning guns", these issues would be fine with you. However, most liberal politicians seek to increase gun restrictions, indepenedent of current registration laws.
Automatic weapons: good for use in war
High capacity magazines: good for use in war
Silencers: good for murdering someone
Since I, at least, live in a civilized society, I don't plan on being in a battle situation where I live.
You live in a civilized society, also. What is your reasoning to possess those items?
No I didn't miss civics class, I am sure you are talking about your guns again, but I do think it is silly for the US to have gun laws that vary from state to state. Gun laws are something that should be done at a federal level since it is one of our amendments.
I concur.
But where I suspect we might disagree, is that there is any need for more gun laws beyond the one that was already written at the federal level on December 15th 1791.
Because every gun law written after that one is a contradiction of the original, which very clearly states that it "shall not be infringed".
The “assault weapons” for sale in the U.S. now aren't really weapons of war. Many people mistake these firearms for machine guns capable of shooting multiple rounds of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger. The federal government banned the sale of machine guns to civilians in 1986.
If I remember this correctly, About half the handguns in the U.S. also have detachable high-capacity magazines.
I heard it takes a good shooter to use M40, for a good shooter, he can turn any hunting rifle a sniper rifle. So I guess it is the skill really counts. How many civilians have spotters? lol Do you people really believe that every civilian who has a so called "sniper" rifle would be deadly? lol
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 05-24-2016 at 06:34 PM..
The “assault weapons” for sale in the U.S. now aren't really weapons of war. Many people mistake these firearms for machine guns capable of shooting multiple rounds of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger. The federal government banned the sale of machine guns to civilians in 1986.
If I remember this correctly, About half the handguns in the U.S. also have detachable high-capacity magazines.
I heard it takes a good shooter to use M40, for a good shooter, he can turn any hunting rifle a sniper rifle. So I guess it is the skill really counts. How many civilians have spotters? lol Do you people really believe that every civilian who has a so called "sniper" rifle would be deadly? lol
Oh I see, if they can only fire on semi-auto rather than full auto they aren't weapons of war. Now that's some really fine tuning of the concept.
Most liberals aren't opposed to people owning guns. They may support more thorough background checks and limiting some people, such as those who have been convicted of a crime, from owning them but few liberals have any desire to ban or confiscate guns across the board. Those people do exist, but I don't believe they represent the majority.
Even so, there is a difference between supporting bans on civilian weapons and believing the government should arm Vietnamese solider (or whomever they're arming; I haven't really looked into this issue yet). I oppose banning guns and arming foreign countries (in most cases), but don't think it's really contradictory to believe in one or not the other since they aren't really the same thing.
Haven't these already been done for over half a century?
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.
